Pubdate: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT) Copyright: 2002 The Salt Lake Tribune Contact: http://www.sltrib.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/383 Author: Stephen Hunt JUSTICES WEIGH ROADBLOCKS AGAIN Two years ago, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the state's roadblock statute, but said police must focus on highway-safety tasks -- such as identifying drunken drivers -- rather than looking for drugs or other ordinary criminal wrongdoing. But as police have struggled to understand that ruling and test its limits, the roadblock issue was once again before the high court Tuesday. Justices heard arguments in an appeal challenging the use of drug sniffing dogs at a roadblock ostensibly to promote highway safety. In the original 3-2 ruling in favor of driver Henry Thomas DeBooy, Justice Christine Durham wrote in 2000 that "multi-purpose, general warrantlike intrusions on the privacy of persons using the highways are unacceptable." On Tuesday, Assistant Utah Attorney General Joanne Slotnik called the DeBooy decision "somewhat ambiguous." Slotnik argued that limiting roadblocks to a single purpose is unworkable. An officer authorized by a judge to check driver sobriety, for instance, cannot ignore other obvious violations of the law, such as the lack of seat-belt use, she said. The latest roadblock case before the court stems from the arrest of Robert Nate Abell, 40, of Colorado, in March 2000, a month after the high court released its decision in the appeal by DeBooy, also of Colorado. Although Abell has been sentenced on several charges, he is still challenging the legality of the roadblock that led to his arrest and a judge's decision to allow prosecutors to use drugs seized from his car as evidence. Prior to arresting Abell, Utah Highway Patrol troopers obtained a judge's permission to set up a roadblock four miles west of Salina on Interstate 70 to target several highway safety issues, including driver impairment, seat-belt use, exterior vehicle safety equipment and the validity of car license plates, registrations and insurance. But in an attempt to comply with the DeBooy ruling, officers sought to limit the intrusive nature of the roadblock by restricting the time spent on each stop to 30 seconds. That was enough time to bust Abell, who was arrested after a trooper smelled the odor of burnt marijuana from inside the car and noticed Abell seemed nervous. Drug-sniffing dogs focused on Abell's luggage, which contained 10 grams of cocaine and less than 2 grams of marijuana. At a later evidence suppression hearing in Richfield's 6th District Court, defense attorney J. Bryan Jackson argued police went beyond their checkpoint plan by having drug-sniffing dogs at the roadblock. Jackson also says officers were discriminating by stopping only cars from Colorado. Judge K.L. McIff upheld the evidence seizure, noting that dogs were employed only after the officer smelled evidence of drug use, and that cars from a number of other states had been stopped. Abell pleaded guilty to drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving under the influence, speeding and driving without a seat belt. McIff placed him on probation, including 90 days in jail and a $1,500 fine. The Utah Supreme Court took Tuesday's arguments under advisement after hearing from Slotnick. Jackson submitted his arguments in writing. Slotnik told The Tribune that police officers want clear guidelines for conducting roadblocks. "You don't want to be infringing on people's freedom," Slotnik said. "How much or how little do we have to change the plan to reach constitutionality? Where do you draw the line?" - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D