ROADBLOCKS TO DRUG CHECKS

There is a fine line between innovative law enforcement tactics used to
protect the public and those used to cut corners on crime fighting that
abridge constitutional rights. An Indiana case before the Supreme Court fits
the latter by allowing police to set up roadblocks subjecting stopped cars
to drug-sniffing dogs without a warrant.

The distinction between court-sanctioned checkpoints to get drunken drivers
off the road and roadblocks erected to sweep an area for drug activity, is
thin but hugely significant. Ten years ago the high court said sobriety
checkpoints were public health and safety measures that were sufficiently
different from regular law enforcement as to not require probable cause
before randomly searching for impaired drivers. The staggering death toll
attributed to drunken drivers makes the case for that approach.

But the city of Indianapolis decided to take the concept of random searching
a step further by setting up drug roadblocks in 1998 that netted drug
traffickers using their vehicles to ply their trade. The ACLU sued on behalf
of the city's drivers to halt the program and lost. But a federal appeals
court reversed that decision, saying it amounted to a " dragnet search for
criminals " in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

While sympathetic to the city's war against drugs, the justices initially
seemed troubled by the possibility that if police were allowed to randomly
stop cars to search for drugs, why couldn't they randomly stop pedestrians
for the same purpose?

The Clinton administration, which supports the Indianapolis program, gave
the justices a way out of their conundrum. It tweaked the logistics of the
program to fit accepted regulation of the public through enforced driver
registration and license laws.

Using the drug search as an adjunct to the official purpose of checking fora
driver's license and registration, the administration argued, wouldjustify a
drug search without probable cause. In other words, if officials already
have the authority to check for licenses - a bona fide purpose - why not
check for other improprieties?

Why not? The Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure for a
reason, to prevent police abuse of power. It may appease the justices if the
Indianapolis program is reworked to seem less threatening - checking
drivers' licenses first and then searching for drugs - but the purpose of
the program will still be to catch drug offenders.

And as Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals wisely
concluded, "the purpose behind the program is critical to its legality."

The purpose of the Indianapolis inspections is clear and so is the Fourth
Amendment. The Supreme Court must not permit cities and law enforcement
agencies to cross the fine but significant line that protects the citizenry
from those who would use their protection as an excuse to erode their rights