DEFENDING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Supreme Court, in an important case last week, reaffirmed the
fundamental Fourth Amendment principle that searches and seizures must be
based on suspicion that a particular individual is engaged in wrongdoing.
The case involved roadblocks set up by the Indianapolis Police Department to
stop and check passing cars for illegal narcotics with drug-sniffing dogs.

The majority opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor forcefully rejected such
roadblocks as violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires that searches
and seizures be reasonable. In ordinary situations, that means there has to
be individualized suspicion before such searches can take place.

In 1990, the court upheld as constitutional roadblocks used to check for
drunken driving, and in the 1970's, it upheld fixed border checkpoints to
intercept illegal aliens. But clearly the court sees those cases as limited
exceptions to Fourth Amendment principles. Sobriety checkpoints were upheld
because they served to protect the public from the immediate highway hazard
posed by drunken drivers. Fixed checkpoints were upheld because of the
special need to protect the integrity of the borders.

A 6-to-3 majority declined to expand these exceptions to drug roadblocks. It
noted that drug checkpoints, unlike sobriety stops, are not closely related
to highway safety concerns, but instead serve a general interest in crime
control. Justice O'Connor said the court "cannot sanction stops justified
only by the generalized and ever present possibility that interrogation and
inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed a crime." Unless
the court drew the line at drug roadblocks, she warned, "the Fourth
Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine
part of American life."