"They're always coming up with something to push the limits of the Fourth Amendment," said Rita Sklar of the American Civil Liberties Union in Arkansas. "You should know what kind of search you are undergoing. That seems to me the American thing to do."

We don't support drunk driving, but we do object to enforcing drunk driving laws at the expense of constitutional rights. No legal challenges have been made to date over the devices. One reason may be that the results are not admissible as evidence of drunk driving:

Results from the flashlight are not admissible in court or used as the sole evidence to convict a drunken driver. "Arrests are not made solely on the information from this device," he said.

However, in cases where motorists refuse to take a breathalyzer test or a blood-alcohol test, troopers can mention in court the fact that the flashlight detected alcohol in the car, Sgt. Garner said.

Another problem with the device: It can't tell who in the car was drinking--only that there is alcohol in the air. So in cases in which more than one person is in the car, it can't pinpoint the driver as the offender. It's not illegal for a passenger to have imbibed before getting in the car.

We predict a lot of legal challenges to the device. Unfortunately, many of those arrested won't be able to afford the legal and expert witness costs of mounting an effective challenge, and it is quite likely the state courts won't agree to pay for the experts in cases with court-appointed counsel.