NEW RULE IN DRUG WARS

Dec. 1, 2000 - Imagine for the moment a major American city with
specific neighborhoods where drug traffic is especially heavy. What is
the city to do? Should it beef up police patrols? Set up random
roadblocks to check for drugs?

Not the latter, says a six-member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nation's highest court, considering an Indianapolis case, Monday
held that random roadblocks that include drug searches violate the
privacy interest of motorists.

Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the court majority, said Indianapolis
had failed to offer a sound justification for the roadblocks beyond
the general desire to enforce the law. That general desire isn't
enough, she said, adding, "If this case were to rest on such a high
level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities'
ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law
enforcement purpose."

Much as we favor the right of police to patrol the street and to seek
out and arrest suspected criminals of all types, we aren't going to
shed many tears over the court's decision limiting police authority.

Indianapolis attorneys had to admit to the court that the roadblocks
weren't particularly effective in that they detained many times more
innocent motorists than criminals. The roadblocks might have passed
constitutional muster had they been limited to catching drunken
drivers or those driving without proper registration. They went beyond
such purposes, however, in that they included having a police dog
sniff the exterior of every car stopped. The court found that the
roadblocks represented a violation of the constitutional provisions
against unreasonable searches and seizures.

We're pleased to note that there is nothing in the court's opinion
that would stop drug searches at the nation's borders, nor will it
interfere in the operation of less intrusive roadblocks aimed at
detecting drunk drivers. Previous court decisions have dealt with
these issues and police powers in these areas are undiminished. What
that means, in practice, is that police will still have, as they
should, an array of effective crimefighting weapons.