JUSTICES REFLECT ON DRUG ROADBLOCKS

WASHINGTON - A new tactic being used by police to wage the war on
drugs - stopping cars and circling them with dogs that can sniff for
narcotics - is in serious constitutional doubt. But Tuesday, the
Supreme Court did little to clear it up.

For the first half of a lively one-hour hearing, drug roadblocks
appeared to be doomed. Several justices sharply criticized the tactic,
raising the possibility that police would turn next to stopping
pedestrians and subjecting them to canine inspection.

But the second half-hour was a different story: The new technique
abruptly seemed to regain constitutional respectability. Justice after
justice suggested that if the police first asked to see a driver's
license and registration, then the dog sniff might pose no
constitutional problem.

For police and motorists, these were only preliminary signs of the
court's leaning. The justices will debate the issue at length and in
private over the next few months, then decide. But Tuesday's public
discussion made it appear that a final ruling won't come easy.

Police in Indianapolis, determined ``to interrupt the flow of illegal
narcotics through Indianapolis,'' began using drug roadblocks two
years ago. The city ran six such roadblocks before motorists who had
been stopped challenged their constitutionality.

In July 1999, a federal appeals court based in Chicago struck down the
program. Unlike roadblocks set up to catch a fleeing criminal or a
terrorist on the loose, or drunken-driving checkpoints or border-state
roadblocks designed to catch illegal immigrants, narcotics checkpoints
operate simply as ``a dragnet search for criminals,'' with no basis
for suspecting any driver before stopping a car, the court said.

Other state and federal courts have divided over the issue, so the
Supreme Court has stepped in to settle it.

In defending the roadblocks Tuesday, Scott Chinn, a city attorney for
Indianapolis, ran into skeptical and at times sharply critical
questioning.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that if drug roadblocks were
upheld, police could go into any high-crime area and set up roadblocks
in hopes of catching robbers or murderers, stopping cars to see if any
turned out to be a ``getaway car.''

Justice Antonin Scalia observed that because ``everybody usually does
everything by car,'' there would be nothing unique constitutionally
about a drug roadblock, and he warned that police would be free to
stop many cars to check for ``burglary tools'' or other evidence of
crime.

Scalia and Justice David Souter suggested that if a drug roadblock
were allowed, there would be no reason why police could not stop
pedestrians on the sidewalk if the officers had some belief that crime
was being committed by people on foot. Justice Stephen Breyer agreed.

An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer from Indianapolis, Kenneth
Falk, then spoke, with the hearing clearly going his way. But the tone
of the hearing quickly turned against his constitutional challenge.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist reminded Falk that the court had
upheld the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police and had permitted
roadblocks to catch illegal aliens, with no suspicion that any car had
aliens inside.

Several justices suggested that if Indianapolis used the roadblocks
also to check for drivers who might be impaired by drug use or those
who might be driving without a license, simply adding a drug-sniffing
dog to the scenario might not be enough to make the operation invalid.

Falk argued that it would, because the only purpose would be to use
the dog for a criminal drug investigation, going beyond the
safe-driving rationale for the initial stop.

``A dog cannot check licenses,'' he said.

``If we break down the barrier here and allow a seizure without cause,
we will have seizures of persons on the streets,'' he said.

The court could not ignore the ``programmatic purpose'' of the drug
checkpoints, Falk insisted.