ARE NARCOTICS CHECKPOINTS LAWFUL?

Supreme Court Justices Question Indianapolis' Random Police Stops

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices on Tuesday questioned whether random
police checks for motorists hauling drugs are legitimate law-enforcement
tactics or unconstitutionally broad searches for criminal activity.

During an hourlong argument, justices were skeptical of Indianapolis city
attorney A. Scott Chinn's defense of police roadblocks and drug-sniffing
dogs as necessary to stymie the narcotics trade through Indiana.

The court was also critical of lawyer Kenneth Falk, representing city
motorists, who called the checkpoints an illegal search for criminals that,
if allowed, could spur officers to create "pedestrian roadblocks" in their
zeal to stop narcotics.

At issue was Indianapolis' since suspended policy of randomly stopping
motorists at roadside checkpoints and having dogs sniff the cars. Officers
also examined driver's licenses and car registrations during the stops,
which lasted an average of three minutes, argued the city. The city lost in
a lower court.

The justices are expected to render their decision by July.

In Texas, the state Court of Criminal Appeals in 1994 struck down local
police sobriety checkpoints as unconstitutional because the state lacked a
comprehensive roadblock program.

State Sen. David Sibley, R-Waco, an advocate of roadblocks, said he hopes
the court's consideration of the Indianapolis case will encourage passage
of a sobriety checkpoint law in Texas.

Defending the Indianapolis policy, Chinn equated the city's checkpoints to
police roadblocks where officers try to catch drunk drivers or motorists
attempting to smuggle immigrants into the United States. The Supreme Court
has upheld those checkpoints as necessary to protect public safety and the
U.S. border, argued Chinn, Indianapolis' corporation counsel.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that, if the city were truly concerned
about road safety, police would be stopping motorists to determine if
they're driving under the influence of drugs, not merely carrying them in
their cars. Such random drug stops might violate the Constitution's Fourth
Amendment prohibition on unreasonable police searches, she said.

Chinn responded that big cities like Indianapolis have "a special interest
in interdicting drugs," and the violence associated with illegal narcotics,
which trumps the motorists' constitutional rights.

According to city statistics, 9 percent of the 1,161 motorists detained
between August and November 1998 were arrested for a drug or other offense.

If the need to stop drugs is so compelling, Justice David H. Souter
wondered, could police stop pedestrians on a sidewalk while a drug-sniffing
dog examined them?

In response, Chinn said police cannot be that aggressive because people
have a "freedom of movement" when they're walking the streets that they
don't enjoy when they're driving.

A Clinton administration representative, Assistant U.S. Solicitor General
Patricia Millett, also argued in favor of the roadblocks.

Falk, the motorists' attorney, conceded that cities have a strong interest
in combating the drug trade. But he cautioned the court against upholding
random, suspicionless stops and drug-sniffing dogs as legitimate police
tactics.

"We are going to end up with pedestrian roadblocks," he predicted.

Falk called the Indianapolis officers' request to see a driver's license
and car registration a transparent attempt to add legitimacy to what he
called an unconstitutional search for criminality. If they were primarily
interested in ensuring that stopped motorists were properly licensed, the
officers wouldn't have drug-sniffing dogs at the ready, he said.

"A dog is not necessary to check for licenses," added Falk, a lawyer with
the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. "A dog cannot check licenses."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, however, asked whether a specially trained
officer who can smell drugs would be allowed to use his talent to uncover a
drug trafficker during a request for a license and registration.

Falk said the officer could conduct his own search. But using a dog,
dedicated to sniffing out drugs, would be an unconstitutional criminal
search of someone not under suspicion, he added.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in mock surprise at Falk's comment, drew laughter
from the courtroom.

"Officers with really sharp noses would be OK?" he asked.