Pubdate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Fax: (213) 237-7679
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/discuss/
Author: David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

U.S. JUSTICES HALT DRUG ROADBLOCKS

Law: Such Routine Police Stops Of Motorists Violate Search Rules, Supreme 
Court Says. It Is The Third Time This Year It Has Sided Against Law 
Enforcement.

WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court called a halt Tuesday to narcotics 
roadblocks, ruling that police may not routinely stop all motorists in 
hopes of finding a few drug criminals.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court stressed that the 4th Amendment forbids police 
from searching people without some specific reason to believe that they did 
something wrong.

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

Tuesday's ruling is the third this year that breathes new life into the 4th 
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 
headquarters. The justices said that the 4th Amendment requires more 
specific evidence of wrongdoing.

The justices also ruled that police may not squeeze or feel a traveler's 
bags in 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 that a traveler's handbags 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 
they could be used nationwide.

In August 1998, city police there set up six checkpoints to stop cars. 
Their intention was to cut the flow of illegal drugs in 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.

Over four months, police said that 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, contending that the checkpoint stops 
were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago agreed on a 2-1 vote that the 
roadblocks violated the 4th Amendment. But in the spring, the high court 
said it would hear the city's appeal.

Lawyers for the city candidly admitted that their purpose was to catch drug 
criminals, not to enforce traffic safety.

They also had two good precedents on their side. In 1989, the high court 
had upheld sobriety roadblocks, ruling that the need to catch drunken 
drivers outweighed the privacy of innocent motorists.

And in 1976, the court had upheld the government's power to stop motorists 
at the immigration checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Diego. Near the 
borders, officials may use extra authority to search for illegal immigrants 
and smugglers, the court said.

On Tuesday, the justices refused to extend those precedents.

"We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and 
ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that 
any given motorist has committed some crime," O'Connor said in her opinion 
in the case (City of Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 99-1030).

Officers can set up emergency roadblocks to catch a fleeing criminal, she 
added. Moreover, airports and government buildings are justified in using 
metal detectors to protect the public safety, she said. But if crime 
fighting is the purpose of the stops, officers need an "individualized 
suspicion" of wrongdoing, she concluded. Her opinion was joined 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 that the roadblocks 
"effectively serve a weighty interest with only minimal intrusion on the 
privacy" of motorists. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed.

The ACLU's legal director, Stephen R. Shapiro, hailed the ruling as a 
victory for civil liberties. "Even a conservative court is not willing to 
countenance the serious erosion of our basic constitutional rights in the 
name of the war on drugs," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart