Pubdate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
Source: Akron Beacon-Journal (OH)
Copyright: 2000 by the Beacon Journal Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.ohio.com/bj/
Forum: http://krwebx.infi.net/webxmulti/cgi-bin/WebX?abeacon
Author: David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

SUPREME COURT PUTS BRAKES ON DRUG ROADBLOCKS

Police Need Specific Reason To Stop, Search Drivers

WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court called a halt yesterday to narcotics 
roadblocks, ruling that police may not routinely stop all motorists in the 
hope of finding a few drug criminals.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court stressed that the Fourth Amendment forbids 
police from searching individuals without a specific reason to believe that 
they did something wrong.

While police have broad authority to stop motorists for traffic violations, 
they do not have the general authority to stop cars ``to detect evidence of 
ordinary criminal wrongdoing,'' wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for the 
court.

It appears the decision will not affect Summit County's law enforcement 
agencies.

County Prosecutor Michael Callahan, who also has served as a Common Pleas 
Court judge, said he was unaware of any such roadblocks conducted by the 
county's police departments.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. 
Souter, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the roadblocks 
``effectively serve a weighty interest with only minimal intrusion on the 
privacy'' of motorists. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed.

Yesterday's ruling is the third this year that breathes new life into the 
Fourth Amendment. It comes as a mild surprise because, until recently, the 
justices had sided regularly with law enforcement in the war on drugs.

Earlier this year, the court ruled that police may not stop and search a 
pedestrian based entirely on a vague and anonymous tip phoned to police. 
The justices said the Fourth Amendment requires more specific evidence of 
wrongdoing.

The justices also ruled that police may not squeeze or feel a traveler's 
bags during a random search for illegal drugs. In that ruling in the case 
of Bond vs. United States, the justices threw out drug evidence against a 
bus passenger who was arrested after an officer felt a brick of 
methamphetamine in his satchel. The court said a traveler's bags are 
private and off limits to searches, except when an officer has a specific 
reason to look for drugs.

Narcotics roadblocks are rare, but the Indianapolis case tested whether or 
not they could be used nationwide.

In August 1998, city police there set up six checkpoints to stop cars, 
aiming to cut the flow of drugs into and out of the city.

When a motorist was stopped, an officer asked to see his or her driver's 
license. At the same time, a second officer with a drug-sniffing dog 
circled the vehicle. If the first officer or the dog detected anything 
suspicious, the vehicle was pulled aside and searched.

In four months, police said they stopped 1,161 motorists and made 104 
arrests. Fifty-five of the arrests were for drug offenses and 49 were for 
other reasons.

When several detained motorists complained about the stops, the American 
Civil Liberties Union sued the city, saying the stops were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago agreed on a 2-1 vote that the 
roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. But in the spring, the Supreme 
Court said it would hear the city's appeal.

In 1989, the court upheld sobriety roadblocks, ruling that the need to 
catch drunken drivers outweighed drivers' privacy.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry F