David A. Rossi's letter to the editor {June 23} is as dismaying as anything I have read in The Post this year. Does he really believe, "good citizens must be willing to sacrifice a small amount of personal liberty to protect those ideals that we cherish?" I always believed "personal liberty" was one of "those ideals that we cherish." I had hoped that his comments concerning "video cameras on each corner of the city," or that "cameras could easily be installed in homes and offices" were sarcastic, at best. But in light of a recent Supreme Court decision, I believe all too many people think Mr. Rossi is serious.

I am referring to the June 14 Supreme Court case involving Saginaw County, Mich. Even Colman McCarthy {op-ed, June 23} falls into the trap of Chief Justice Rehnquist's argument that "the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving weighs in favor of the state program" of sobriety checkpoints. It doesn't take a constitutional law expert to see where this line of thought leads.

If arresting one in one hundred drivers on drunken-driving charges justifies stopping the other 99, then certainly the police have the right to kick in our front doors. After all, they will certainly be able to find one in one hundred people who possess or are using illegal drugs; are committing adultery or sodomy; possess stolen goods; are committing child abuse; own unregestered weapons or are illegal aliens, etc. Need I go on? Each of these are in the state's interest in prevention, but all should require a search warrant based on "probable cause." The driver of a car deserves at least the benefit of probable cause and nothing less. JOHN A. WRIGHT III Falls Church

Which phrases in the Constitution say our courts should flout the laws of nature and keep people alive by artificial means, when they are no longer able to perform even the most basic functions of living organisms, let alone of human beings {"Court Rules 'Right to Die' Depends on Patients Intent," front page, June 26}?

Where in the Constitution did the writers give the justices the right to play God and refuse to permit a death that nature demands?

The decisions in the case of Nancy Cruzan at both the state and federal level are demeaning to the patient and to humanity. They inflict cruel torture on parents and others who sincerely care. ANN PIERCE DORR Bethesda