SUPREME COURT ENDORSES SOBRIETY, DRUG CHECKS

Roadblocks Aimed At Nabbing Drunks Are Ruled Legal

INDIANAPOLIS -- Police roadblocks designed to catch drunken drivers are
legal under the state constitution, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The unanimous decision overturned a ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals
that interpreted the state constitution as prohibiting all sobriety
checkpoints on grounds that they were unreasonable seizures.

The high court, however, said such checkpoints could be used if certain
conditions were met.

"A minimally intrusive roadblock, designed and implemented on neutral
criteria that safely and effectively targets a serious danger specific to
vehicular operation, is constitutionally reasonable, unlike the random and
purely discretionary stops we have disapproved," yesterday's ruling said.

However, the court's majority said the checkpoint that led to the latest
appellate court review did not meet constitutional guidelines.

The court said the officers were given too much discretion and there was a
weak link between the danger to the public and the objectives, location and
timing of the checkpoints.

The case involved Jarrod Gerschoffer, who challenged his June 18, 1999,
arrest at a checkpoint operated by Mishawaka and state police.

Gerschoffer failed three sobriety tests and showed signs of intoxication.
He was asked to take a breath test, which showed he had a bloodalcohol
level of 0.11 percent. At the time, that was just above the legal limit of
0.10 percent, police said.

The appeals court agreed with Gerschoffer's attorney, Mark Kopinski of
South Bend, and found that the checkpoints were an "unreasonable seizure"
under the state constitution because they were done without a warrant or
probable cause.

The appellate court said a reasonable suspicion was required before such
traffic stops could be conducted.

The ruling, in November 2000, prompted police agencies throughout Indiana
to stop using the checkpoints.

The Supreme Court found faults with the Mishawaka checkpoint, saying it had
many goals, including catching motorists for seat-belt and child-restraint
violations, reducing speeding and "cruising," and making sure drivers had
proper license, registration and insurance information.

"This sounds more like a generalized dragnet than a minimally intrusive,
neutral effort to remove impaired drivers from the roadways before they
hurt someone," the majority opinion said.