DRUG SEARCHES

The Supreme Court affirms Fourth Amendment protections, but how far is it
willing to go?

In welcome news, the Supreme Court ruled recently that it is
unconstitutional to indiscriminately stop motorists to conduct a drug search
with no specific suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court found
that Indianapolis does not have the right to set up roadblocks to combat
drugs. The court has previously upheld roadblocks to catch illegal aliens
and drunken drivers or to check licenses and registration, but O'Connor
noted that those were limited exceptions related to policing the border and
ensuring highway safety.

In contrast, she reasoned that the primary purpose of the Indianapolis
checkpoints was "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," and
adhered to a stricter standard requiring individual suspicion of a search or
seizure.

The decision was a wise check on the limits of police power. Random searches
without reason constitute an overly broad effort to combat drug use, however
serious the problem may be.

Though a welcome decision, the ruling did little to clarify an admittedly
murky area of jurisprudence. Supreme Court precedent concerning Fourth
Amendment rights is an amalgam of exceptions, exemptions and gray areas.
O'Connor's decision enumerated the special consideration that the court has
given in border areas, airports, schools and the vicinity of federal
buildings.

In addition are the distinct standards that apply to searches of one's home,
personal property and body.

Clarity is needed but unlikely. The court increasingly approaches Fourth
Amendment cases with no defining principle and little guide except its
tortured precedent. O'Connor remains at the center of a divided court, and
her incremental approach to the law suggests that limited, narrow rulings
will be the norm.