Pubdate: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
Source: Savannah Morning News (GA)
Copyright: 2000 Savannah Morning News
Contact:  http://www.savannahnow.com/
Forum: http://chat.savannahnow.com:90/eshare/

A WIN FOR PRIVACY

FOR YEARS law enforcement has been given the green light by courts to use 
roadblocks to stop and search motorists for a wide variety of reasons -- 
drunk driving and not having a valid license or insurance, for example.

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday finally applied the brakes when it came to 
narcotics. By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that random police searches of 
motorists for drugs were unreasonable and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.

The court is drawing a fine line between lawful sobriety checkpoints and 
unlawful drug searches. Indeed, on first blush they appear to be one and 
the same. But the court makes a distinction between immediate road safety 
and more generalized illegal activity.

In so doing, it is affirming an important constitutional right to privacy.

The case before the court involved Indianapolis police, who set up 
checkpoints in high-crime neighborhoods to help stop the flow of drugs into 
and out of the city. Motorists were stopped for no reason other than the 
fact they were driving in the area. Drug-sniffing dogs circled their 
vehicles. If the dogs detected anything suspicious, the car would be 
thoroughly searched by officers.

Over four months in 1998, 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 charges.

City officials said the roadblocks served a valid and vital public safety 
interest. True, interdicting the drug trade is a worthy goal. But how that 
is accomplished is important, too. Our constitutional rights must not be 
compromised as a means to an end, no matter how noble the cause.

The Indianapolis police treated every motorist as a potential druggie and 
detained them despite having no evidence that they had committed a crime. 
Opponents of racial profiling complain that certain motorists are stopped 
because they are "driving while black." The Indy roadblocks did that one 
better by nabbing people simply for driving.

That's too general a reason and opens the door to unlimited warrantless 
police searches that would all but nullify the Fourth Amendment.

The difference between disallowing drug searches, while approving sobriety 
checkpoints, is that a drunk driver imperils every other motorist on the 
road. Police have a compelling and immediate reason to ensure that no one 
is driving under the influence. Drug possession does not pose the same kind 
of risk.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D