U.S. JUSTICES HALT DRUG ROADBLOCKS

Law: Such Routine Police Stops Of Motorists Violate Search Rules, Supreme
Court Says. It Is The Third Time This Year It Has Sided Against Law
Enforcement.

WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court called a halt Tuesday to narcotics
roadblocks, ruling that police may not routinely stop all motorists in
hopes of finding a few drug criminals.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court stressed that the 4th Amendment forbids police
from searching people without some specific reason to believe that they did
something wrong.

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

Tuesday's ruling is the third this year that breathes new life into the 4th
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
headquarters. The justices said that the 4th Amendment requires more
specific evidence of wrongdoing.

The justices also ruled that police may not squeeze or feel a traveler's
bags in 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 that a traveler's handbags 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
they could be used nationwide.

In August 1998, city police there set up six checkpoints to stop cars.
Their intention was to cut the flow of illegal drugs in 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.

Over four months, police said that 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, contending that the checkpoint stops
were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago agreed on a 2-1 vote that the
roadblocks violated the 4th Amendment. But in the spring, the high court
said it would hear the city's appeal.

Lawyers for the city candidly admitted that their purpose was to catch drug
criminals, not to enforce traffic safety.

They also had two good precedents on their side. In 1989, the high court
had upheld sobriety roadblocks, ruling that the need to catch drunken
drivers outweighed the privacy of innocent motorists.

And in 1976, the court had upheld the government's power to stop motorists
at the immigration checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Diego. Near the
borders, officials may use extra authority to search for illegal immigrants
and smugglers, the court said.

On Tuesday, the justices refused to extend those precedents.

"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," O'Connor said in her opinion
in the case (City of Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 99-1030).

Officers can set up emergency roadblocks to catch a fleeing criminal, she
added. Moreover, airports and government buildings are justified in using
metal detectors to protect the public safety, she said. But if crime
fighting is the purpose of the stops, officers need an "individualized
suspicion" of wrongdoing, 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 that the roadblocks
"effectively serve a weighty interest with only minimal intrusion on the
privacy" of motorists. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed.

The ACLU's legal director, Stephen R. Shapiro, hailed the ruling as a
victory for civil liberties. "Even a conservative court is not willing to
countenance the serious erosion of our basic constitutional rights in the
name of the war on drugs," he said.