FIGHTING CRIME SHOULD NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES

Everyone expects law enforcement to keep our streets safe from drunken
drivers and to fight the use and distribution of illegal drugs. But should
that protection come by any means necessary? Is fighting crime worth
sacrificing the rights of privacy and freedom from illegal searches
guaranteed by the Constitution?

These are questions the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering as it
determines whether drug-search roadblocks orchestrated by Indianapolis
police in 1998 are constitutional. On Tuesday, the court heard arguments in
this case which pits privacy rights against the interests of law
enforcement and is expected to issue a ruling by June.

In 1998, Indianapolis police pulled over cars at random in high-crime
neighborhoods, questioned motorists, and led a drug-sniffing dog around the
car's exterior and sometimes inside the car. The majority of the 1,161
motorists detained were innocent. Police arrested 104 people -- 55 of which
were on drug charges.

The court must decide whether the Indianapolis roadblocks are comparable to
the accepted use of border roadblocks to find illegal immigrants or random
DUI checkpoints. Or, were the police using the roadblocks to investigate
people for criminal drug activity without having any reason to suspect
wrongdoing.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches or seizures and
protects individuals from indiscriminate questioning by police.

In DUI checkpoints, an officer must rely on his own senses to determine
whether a driver is intoxicated -- a method that is allowed under the
Fourth Amendment. However, the drug-search roadblocks involved officers
using a drug-sniffing dog as a tool for detecting drugs that couldn't be
found with just the officer's senses.

Similar roadblocks have been conducted in other cities and, if sanctioned
by the Supreme Court, could flourish and become a common investigation
method for police.

This isn't the first time an investigative method by the police has raised
our concern. Recent news reports about the popularity of a flashlight that
contains a hidden alcohol detector among police departments across the
country also raised some questions about invasion of privacy and illegal
searches. When an officer pulls a car over he or she can hold the
flashlight in front of the driver and get a reading of whether there are
traces of alcohol on the driver's breath. Unlike traditional Breathalyzer
tests, the flashlight breath test is done without the driver's knowledge.

Similar to the drug-sniffing dogs, this device goes beyond the "plain sight
doctrine" that allows the police to use their own senses to judge whether
someone has been involved in criminal activity. The constitutionality of
the "Sniffer" flashlight has not been tested in court, but it probably
should be.

We believe both these methods constitute illegal searches and cannot be
condoned. Allowing this level of random investigation by police should be
of concern to anyone who values the protections afforded by the
Constitution. This isn't far from allowing the police to be able to stop
and question anyone who just happens to be walking down the street
regardless of whether there is probable cause or reason to suspect that the
person is engaged in criminal activity.

Despite concerns about the damage drunken driving and illicit drug activity
can cause to our communities, it is wrong for police to conduct searches
without probable cause and allowing them to take place undermines the
Constitution. The ends do not justify the means. We want law enforcement
officers to fight crimes, but they have to do it without stomping on
freedoms in the process.