SUPREME COURT SHOULD UPHOLD 'PROBABLE CAUSE' REQUIREMENT

Ever veer off an exit on the interstate and find yourself surrounded by
police officers and dogs trained to sniff out illegal drugs? Ever been
driving late at night and run into a roadblock manned by officers who want
to check your car?

Chances are you have -- especially if you are young or black or you have
long hair or a pierced eyebrow or anything that makes you suspicious in a
police officer's eyes.

It happens all the time. But is it a violation of your constitutional rights?

The Supreme Court began weighing that question Tuesday when they heard
arguments for and against random drug-search roadblocks. A ruling is
expected next year.

The case stemmed from roadblocks set up in Indianapolis in 1998. Cars were
pulled over at random in high-crime neighborhoods, motorists were
questioned and dogs sniffed outside the car while the driver waited.

The random checks came to a halt when two men challenged the practice in
federal court.

The city wants to use the roadblocks to fight drug trafficking. Attorneys
representing the city say the number of arrests justifies the practice.
Police stopped 1,161 cars and trucks and made 104 arrests. Fifty-five of
the arrests were on drug charges.

The city of Indianapolis and the U.S. solicitor general argued that the
need to control drug activity outweighs privacy rights.

The Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that
police do not have the right to detain someone when there is no reason to
believe that person is breaking the law.

Police generally need a warrant issued by a judge or a reason to suspect
people of a crime -- referred to as "probable cause" -- before detaining
them for even a few minutes. But since 1967, the Supreme Court has upheld a
variety of searches conducted without probable cause. The court has allowed
searches at sobriety checkpoints and border roadblocks to catch illegal
immigrants, for example.

A federal trial judge who heard the Indianapolis case ruled in favor of the
city, but the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Indianapolis
checkpoints violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition of
unreasonable seizure.

We would have to agree.

It's true that the motorists were detained for only a few minutes, and
police did make some arrests. It's also true that officers find themselves
in a desperate war on drugs, and it's in everyone's best interest if they win.

But the ends don't always justify the means. The Constitution can't be
discarded because officers believe they are on the side of the angels. Most
people detained at random check sites are guilty only of being in the
officers' path.

Probable cause is a subjective thing, but at least it affords the innocent
citizen a little protection against overzealous police.

People tend not to worry about that sort of thing until they become a
victim themselves. Occasionally, though, a case surfaces that drives the
point home.

One such case was reported recently by The Associated Press. In Davidson,
N.C., a police officer decided to search a woman's car for drugs after he
spotted a photo of a marijuana plant on the front page of a newspaper in
her car at a license check.

Turns out, the newspaper was an issue of "Creative Loafing," an alternative
weekly that featured a story about police using helicopters to find
marijuana fields.

The officer found no drugs in the woman's car.

But, when The Associated Press last moved a story about the incident, the
officer -- and his supervisor -- were still insisting the officer was
justified in suspecting the woman of drug activity.

It was, his supervisor said, a "reasonable suspicion."