SUPREME COURT PUTS BRAKES ON DRUG ROADBLOCKS

Police Need Specific Reason To Stop, Search Drivers

WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court called a halt yesterday to narcotics
roadblocks, ruling that police may not routinely stop all motorists in the
hope of finding a few drug criminals.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court stressed that the Fourth Amendment forbids
police from searching individuals without a specific reason to believe that
they did something wrong.

While police have broad authority to stop motorists for traffic violations,
they do not have the general authority to stop cars ``to detect evidence of
ordinary criminal wrongdoing,'' wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for the
court.

It appears the decision will not affect Summit County's law enforcement
agencies.

County Prosecutor Michael Callahan, who also has served as a Common Pleas
Court judge, said he was unaware of any such roadblocks conducted by the
county's police departments.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H.
Souter, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the roadblocks
``effectively serve a weighty interest with only minimal intrusion on the
privacy'' of motorists. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed.

Yesterday's ruling is the third this year that breathes new life into the
Fourth Amendment. It comes as a mild surprise because, until recently, the
justices had sided regularly with law enforcement in the war on drugs.

Earlier this year, the court ruled that police may not stop and search a
pedestrian based entirely on a vague and anonymous tip phoned to police.
The justices said the Fourth Amendment requires more specific evidence of
wrongdoing.

The justices also ruled that police may not squeeze or feel a traveler's
bags during a random search for illegal drugs. In that ruling in the case
of Bond vs. United States, the justices threw out drug evidence against a
bus passenger who was arrested after an officer felt a brick of
methamphetamine in his satchel. The court said a traveler's bags are
private and off limits to searches, except when an officer has a specific
reason to look for drugs.

Narcotics roadblocks are rare, but the Indianapolis case tested whether or
not they could be used nationwide.

In August 1998, city police there set up six checkpoints to stop cars,
aiming to cut the flow of drugs into and out of the city.

When a motorist was stopped, an officer asked to see his or her driver's
license. At the same time, a second officer with a drug-sniffing dog
circled the vehicle. If the first officer or the dog detected anything
suspicious, the vehicle was pulled aside and searched.

In four months, police said they stopped 1,161 motorists and made 104
arrests. Fifty-five of the arrests were for drug offenses and 49 were for
other reasons.

When several detained motorists complained about the stops, the American
Civil Liberties Union sued the city, saying the stops were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago agreed on a 2-1 vote that the
roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. But in the spring, the Supreme
Court said it would hear the city's appeal.

In 1989, the court upheld sobriety roadblocks, ruling that the need to
catch drunken drivers outweighed drivers' privacy.