SUPREME COURT HEARS CHALLENGE TO INDISCRIMINATE ROADBLOCKS

WASHINGTON - Lawyers for motorists delayed by a police roadblock set up to
look for illegal drugs called the practice heavy-handed and risky Tuesday,
and asked the Supreme Court to ban it.

The justices took a new look at privacy rights versus the interests of law
enforcement with the case of random drug-search roadblocks. The police
checkpoints detain far more innocent motorists than criminals.

The city of Indianapolis, which set up the roadblocks in 1998, called them
a simple and effective way to stem drug trafficking in high-crime
neighborhoods, and said the stops are no more intrusive than random checks
for drunken drivers or illegal immigrants.

``The risk here is if we break down this barrier ... we will be faced with
ever-increasing incursions that will be balanced away,'' by the argument
that the benefit to the public good outweighs individual privacy concerns,
replied Kenneth Falk, a lawyer for the Indiana chapter of the American
Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU, which represents two detained motorists, argues that police do
not have the right to investigate criminal drug activity without good
reason to suspect one motorist or another.

The court will review a federal appeals court ruling that said the
Indianapolis checkpoints probably amounted to unreasonable seizures in
violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

A Supreme Court decision, expected by June, will provide the court's latest
word on the amendment's scope.

Several other cities have used similar checkpoints and the practice could
become fairly common if the Supreme Court gives its blessing.

The question for the court is similar in some respects to the issue of
whether drunken-driving checkpoints are an acceptable infringement on
innocent drivers. There, courts have generally agreed that the benefit to
public safety from getting drunks off the road outweighs individual privacy
concerns.

A. Scott Chinn, the lawyer for the city, argued that stopping cars is
efficient, because people can carry large amounts of drugs by car.

Justice Antonin Scalia drew a laugh in questioning that logic.

``I know of very few burglars who go on foot,'' he observed, adding later,
``everybody almost usually does everything by car. I don't see anything
special about this.''

Cars were pulled over at random in high-crime neighborhoods in
Indianapolis, motorists questioned, and a drug-sniffing dog led around the
car's exterior. Most motorists were detained for about three minutes.

The city conducted six roadblocks over four months in 1998 before the
practice was challenged in federal court by two Indianapolis residents,
James Edmond and Joell Palmer.

The city wants the right to reinstate the roadblocks as one proven tool
toward stemming drug trafficking. City lawyers note the high volume of
drugs that can be carried by car, and cite the relatively high ``hit rate''
of drug seizures from those six roadblocks.

Police stopped 1,161 cars and trucks and made 104 arrests. Fifty-five of
the arrests were on drug charges.

Police generally need a court warrant or a reason to suspect people of a
crime before detaining them for several minutes. But since 1967, the
Supreme Court has upheld a variety of searches conducted without any
specific, individual cause for suspicion. Searches that passed muster
include sobriety checkpoints and border roadblocks to catch illegal immigrants.

A federal trial judge ruled in favor of the city, but the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals said the Indianapolis checkpoints are different. ``The
city concedes that its proximate goal is to catch drug offenders in the
hope of incapacitating them, and deterring others, by criminal
prosecution,'' the appeals court said.

The case is Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 99-1030.