HIGH COURT TAKES UP POLICE DRUG CHECKPOINTS

Justices Hear Arguments In Indianapolis Case That Focuses On Privacy
Rights Versus The Tactics Used By Authorities In The War On Narcotics.

WASHINGTON--Two years ago, motorists in Indianapolis often came upon a
surprising scene. A sign by the roadside warned: "Narcotics checkpoint
ahead. K-9 in use. Be prepared to stop."

Cars were met by a team of police officers. One spoke to the driver
and asked to see a license and registration, while another led a
drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle.

Most of the drivers were allowed to proceed after five minutes or so.
About 9% were arrested for either a traffic offense or because illegal
drugs were found.

Such drug checkpoints may become a familiar feature of many cities if
the Supreme Court upholds the Indianapolis program. And that appeared
to be a distinct possibility after Tuesday's oral argument before the
high court.

"Motor vehicles are deadly weapons potentially," said Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor, noting that police have broad powers to stop cars if
they think the drivers might be drunk, drug-impaired or unlicensed.

Justice Antonin Scalia added that in his neighborhood in Fairfax
County, Va., police stop cars to check to see if drivers have paid
their vehicle taxes. "It's a perfectly legitimate stop. And we don't
look further at the purpose."

Civil Liberties Union Challenges Searches

The two questioned why the stops would be held unconstitutional just
because the police were actually looking for drugs, not unlicensed
drivers.

A lawyer for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union stressed that the
police were not engaged in traffic enforcement but were looking for
evidence of crime. And, traditionally, the 4th Amendment has barred
police from searching people without some evidence they have done
something wrong.

"This has a criminal investigative purpose. It is stopping bad guys
carrying drugs, not drugged drivers," said Kenneth J. Falk, the civil
liberties lawyer.

If the police are free to stop all motorists to look for drugs, he
added, "we will soon have seizure of persons on the streets."

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down the drug
checkpoints on a 2-1 vote. Chief Judge Richard Posner said the
"purpose of the roadblocks [was] to catch drug offenders," not traffic
offenders.

A decade ago, the high court upheld sobriety roadblocks in a Michigan
case, ruling the police had good reason to get drunken drivers off the
highways.

Tuesday's case, City of Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 99-1030, appears to
turn on whether the drug roadblocks are seen as traffic enforcement or
criminal searches.

The hourlong argument swayed back and forth.

At first, the justices sounded troubled at giving the police unlimited
power to conduct dragnet searches of cars.

Scalia Initially Appears Skeptical

In a high-crime area, "can you stop all the cars to see if they have
burglar tools?" asked Scalia, sounding skeptical.

But a Justice Department lawyer, supporting Indianapolis, pointed out
that the police check the licenses and vehicle registrations, and
these are legitimate reasons for stopping cars. This argument seemed
to turn the court in the city's favor.

Recently, the justices have shown a renewed interest in the 4th
Amendment and the war on drugs. Today, they will hear an unusual case
from South Carolina in which the hospital and police combined to
arrest pregnant women who tested positive for cocaine.