Pubdate: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 Source: Athens Daily News (GA) Copyright: 2000 Athens Newspapers Inc. Address: PO Box 912, Athens, GA 30603 Fax: 706-208-2246 Feedback: http://www.onlineathens.com/feedback.shtml Website: http://www.onlineathens.com/ Forum: http://www.onlineathens.com/community/forums.shtml FIGHTING CRIME SHOULD NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES Everyone expects law enforcement to keep our streets safe from drunken drivers and to fight the use and distribution of illegal drugs. But should that protection come by any means necessary? Is fighting crime worth sacrificing the rights of privacy and freedom from illegal searches guaranteed by the Constitution? These are questions the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering as it determines whether drug-search roadblocks orchestrated by Indianapolis police in 1998 are constitutional. On Tuesday, the court heard arguments in this case which pits privacy rights against the interests of law enforcement and is expected to issue a ruling by June. In 1998, Indianapolis police pulled over cars at random in high-crime neighborhoods, questioned motorists, and led a drug-sniffing dog around the car's exterior and sometimes inside the car. The majority of the 1,161 motorists detained were innocent. Police arrested 104 people -- 55 of which were on drug charges. The court must decide whether the Indianapolis roadblocks are comparable to the accepted use of border roadblocks to find illegal immigrants or random DUI checkpoints. Or, were the police using the roadblocks to investigate people for criminal drug activity without having any reason to suspect wrongdoing. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches or seizures and protects individuals from indiscriminate questioning by police. In DUI checkpoints, an officer must rely on his own senses to determine whether a driver is intoxicated -- a method that is allowed under the Fourth Amendment. However, the drug-search roadblocks involved officers using a drug-sniffing dog as a tool for detecting drugs that couldn't be found with just the officer's senses. Similar roadblocks have been conducted in other cities and, if sanctioned by the Supreme Court, could flourish and become a common investigation method for police. This isn't the first time an investigative method by the police has raised our concern. Recent news reports about the popularity of a flashlight that contains a hidden alcohol detector among police departments across the country also raised some questions about invasion of privacy and illegal searches. When an officer pulls a car over he or she can hold the flashlight in front of the driver and get a reading of whether there are traces of alcohol on the driver's breath. Unlike traditional Breathalyzer tests, the flashlight breath test is done without the driver's knowledge. Similar to the drug-sniffing dogs, this device goes beyond the "plain sight doctrine" that allows the police to use their own senses to judge whether someone has been involved in criminal activity. The constitutionality of the "Sniffer" flashlight has not been tested in court, but it probably should be. We believe both these methods constitute illegal searches and cannot be condoned. Allowing this level of random investigation by police should be of concern to anyone who values the protections afforded by the Constitution. This isn't far from allowing the police to be able to stop and question anyone who just happens to be walking down the street regardless of whether there is probable cause or reason to suspect that the person is engaged in criminal activity. Despite concerns about the damage drunken driving and illicit drug activity can cause to our communities, it is wrong for police to conduct searches without probable cause and allowing them to take place undermines the Constitution. The ends do not justify the means. We want law enforcement officers to fight crimes, but they have to do it without stomping on freedoms in the process. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart