THE RIGHT DECISION ON INDY ROADBLOCKS

Police agencies have a hard time balancing the public's need to be
protected with its right to privacy. With Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that struck down an Indianapolis drug roadblock program, the task
becomes harder, but fairer, too.

The high court found that a series of drug roadblocks set up by
Indianapolis police in 1998 infringed on motorists' Fourth Amendment right
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Though most of the traffic
stops lasted only a few minutes, the court said the citizens' right to
drive unrestricted on the roadways outweighs the speculative hope of
catching lawbreakers at random.

The Indianapolis Police Department launched the roadblocks in response to
neighborhood complaints about festering crime, much of it believed to be
drug-related. In four months, officers pulled over 1,161 vehicles and made
104 arrests on various infractions, including 55 on drug charges. While
maintaining the searches were legal, Indianapolis suspended the roadblocks
when two motorists, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union,
filed suit in federal court.

The Supreme Court ruling was not surprising given the tactics used by
police. Cars were selected at random and motorists questioned while a drug
sniffing dog was led around their cars. While the court said its ruling
does not prohibit the continued use of other focused types of roadblocks,
such as border checkpoints and traps to snare drunk drivers, the
Indianapolis model went too far.

"If this case were to rest on such a high level of generality, there would
be little check on the authorities' ability to construct roadblocks for
almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose," Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor wrote for the 6-3 majority.

In other words, the Indianapolis roadblocks sent police on unlimited
fishing expeditions. Despite the public's intense interest in controlling
drug traffic, the end did not justify the means.