POLICE BARRIERS

Drug Roadblocks Struck Down In Latest Victory For Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment has been on a winning streak in the U.S. Supreme
Court. The latest example came on Nov. 28 when the Court called a halt to
narcotics roadblocks, ruling that the police may not routinely stop all
motorists in hopes of finding a few drug criminals.

Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stressed "the general
rule that a seizure must be accompanied by some measure of individualized
suspicion."

New Turn In The Road?

The 6-3 ruling in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, No. 99-1030, comes as a
mild surprise. For many years, the war on drugs seemed to be mostly
vanquishing the Fourth Amendment.

More than a decade ago, the Court upheld mandatory drug testing of railroad
workers and customs agents, and suggested that the great need to combat
narcotics generally outweighed privacy rights of individuals.

In a second line of cases, the Court said the police have broad authority
to stop cars so as to enforce the traffic safety laws. In 1990, the
justices upheld the constitutionality of sobriety roadblocks in Michigan v.
Sitz, 496 U.S. 440.

With those rulings as backdrop, Indianapolis police set up six checkpoints
to cut the flow of drugs in and out of the city. Motorists were stopped and
asked for a driver's license and registration. As they did so, a second
officer circled the vehicle with a drug-sniffing dog. If an officer or the
dog detected anything suspicious, the vehicle was pulled aside and searched.

Between August and November of 1998, police stopped 1,161 motorists and
made 104 arrests. Of these, 55 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, contending the checkpoint stops were
unconstitutional.

They won in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, but the
justices took up the city's claim that narcotics checkpoints deserved the
same legal status as sobriety roadblocks.

O'Connor drew a clear distinction between traffic enforcement and crime
fighting. "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and
ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that
any given motorist has committed some crime," she wrote.

In special circumstances, stops are permitted, she added. Officers can set
up emergency roadblocks to catch a fleeing criminal. Moreover, airports and
government buildings are justified in using metal detectors to protect
public safety.

But if crime fighting is the purpose of the stops, the officers need an
individualized suspicion of wrong-doing, she concluded. Her opinion was
joined 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 their occupants." Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
agreed, although Thomas in a separate statement said he would have voted to
overrule all the checkpoint rulings, including the sobriety roadblocks, had
the issue been squarely raised.

Taken together, the opinions suggest a new reluctance at the Court to
uphold general searches of presumably innocent persons, a trend that casts
doubts on moves to expand mandatory drug testing.

The ruling in the Indianapolis checkpoints case was the third this year
that breathes new life into the Fourth. In March, the Court ruled in
Florida v. J.L., No. 98-1993, that police may not stop and search a
pedestrian based entirely on a vague and anonymous phone tip to police
headquarters. The justices said the Fourth Amendment requires more specific
evidence of wrongdoing.

The justices in April ruled in Bond v. United States, No. 98-9349, that
police may not squeeze or feel a traveler's bags in a random drug search.
The Court said such bags are private and off limits to searches, except
when an officer has a specific reason to look for drugs.