JUSTICES' RULING AGAINST DRUG CHECKPOINTS WILL AFFECT MISSOURI

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Indianapolis' use of random
roadblocks intended to catch drug criminals, which would force Missouri law
enforcement agencies to end the practice.

The 6-3 ruling weighed privacy rights over law enforcement. The majority
found that drug-sniffing dogs used in Indianapolis to check all cars at the
roadblocks was an unreasonable search and violated the Fourth Amendment.

In Missouri the practice has been used mainly by sheriff's departments, some
police agencies and the Missouri Highway Patrol.

While some agencies have used the roadblocks, the most common tool to find
drug dealers on highways is through traffic stops.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said the
ruling did not affect other police roadblocks such as drunken-driving checks
or border checks. Those have been found constitutional.

But those are allowed mainly because the public benefit outweighs the
inconvenience, and that cannot be applied broadly, O'Connor wrote.

If so, the opinion said, authorities could set up "roadblocks for almost any
conceivable law enforcement purpose."

The American Civil Liberties Union brought the court challenge on behalf of
two motorists who had been detained. ACLU lawyers argued that police had no
right to use the roadblocks to investigate criminal drug activity without
good reason to suspect one motorist or another.

Lawyers for Indianapolis conceded that the roadblocks, erected in 1998,
detained far more innocent motorists than criminals. The city said its
primary aim was to catch drug criminals.

One Missouri police agency said the ruling would force a change.

Capt. Chris Ricks said the Missouri Highway Patrol had used drug stops
mainly in partnerships with local police or sheriff departments.

Officers used to put a sign on a highway that warned of a drug interdiction
stop ahead. They then stopped motorists who took an exit to avoid it.

They "would run right up the exit ramp (and into police hands)," Ricks said.
"We won't be able to do that anymore."

How the ruling would impact other Missouri law enforcement agencies remained
unclear late Tuesday.

Jim Vermersh, executive director of the Missouri Sheriffs Association, and
Sheldon Lineback, executive director of the Missouri Police Chiefs
Association, said they had not seen the ruling, so they declined to comment.

Phelps County Sheriff Don Blankenship, who is known to some as the "Sheriff
of I-44," did not return telephone calls Tuesday.

For years, Blankenship has conducted checkpoints at least twice a week along
Interstate 44, about 32 miles through Phelps County and Rolla.

In his recent re-election, Blankenship was criticized heavily for spending
so much time on the interstate instead of patrolling the county.

"That's incredible," said Randy VerKamp, presiding Phelps County
commissioner, when he learned of the decision. "I'm sure that will be a
source of some discussion with the sheriff."

The issue could be discussed as early as Thursday at the next commission
meeting, VerKamp said.

Hickory County Sheriff's Department, which also conducts the checkpoints,
had no comment.

The central location of Missouri and Kansas means drug couriers drive
through going back and forth, east-west or north-south, Ricks said. That
traffic leads to arrests.

"Drug lords don't hire the most intelligent people," Ricks said.

The drivers weave on the road, speed or commit some other traffic violation
and get stopped, he said, and then get flustered, lie and get caught.

The Kansas patrol uses roadblocks to check primarily for drunken driving and
proper licenses and insurance, said Lt. John Eichkorn. A drug dog is brought
in only if officers smell or see drugs during a check. Eichkorn said he did
not think the court's ruling would affect Kansas.

In Tuesday's ruling, the justices were not swayed by the argument that the
severe drug problem in some city neighborhoods justified the searches.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence
Thomas dissented.

"Efforts to enforce the law on public highways used by millions of motorists
are obviously necessary to our society," Rehnquist wrote. "The court's
opinion today casts a shadow over what has been assumed...to be a perfectly
lawful activity."

The court heard arguments in the case in early October, reviewing a federal
appeals court ruling that said the Indianapolis checkpoints probably
amounted to unreasonable seizures.