DON'T REJECT NOVEL WAYS TO MAKE WAR ON DRUGS

From the Deseret News (Salt Lake City)

Law enforcement officials need as many tools as possible in order to
prosecute and arrest criminals, thereby making society safer for law-
abiding citizens. The tools do need to be legal, however, which brings
into question a tactic being used by Utah Highway Patrol troopers
throughout the state.

The so-called "no-block roadblock," which has resulted in a number of
arrests of drivers toting or using drugs or alcohol on the road, has
raised eyebrows. Iron County Attorney Scott M. Burns believes the
surveillance maneuver violates Utah law and therefore should not be
used. Utah law states that police agencies must receive a judge's
approval before conducting a roadblock. As such that particular tactic
has been temporarily discontinued in Iron County.

The UHP counters by saying that the signs, placed along the highway
shoulder with messages such as "drug-sniffing dog ahead" and "narcotics
officers, checkpoint up ahead," don't constitute roadblocks but merely
trick would-be drug users and dealers. Therefore, a court order isn't
necessary.

Is the practice deceptive? Yes. But shouldn't law enforcement
personnel be allowed to be deceptive to catch criminals? Criminals
clearly are deceptive.

Here's how it works: Troopers watch for drivers who act suspiciously as
they pass the sign. Some drug users actually toss drugs out a car
window. Others do an abrupt about-face, making a quick U-turn to avoid
the "roadblock." Some cars that are less blatant but still suspicious
are followed by strategically placed troopers and pulled over if they
disobey a minor traffic law. Troopers then conduct a routine traffic
stop but are often accompanied by a drug-sniffing dog. If the dog
reacts, the troopers then have probable cause to search the vehicle.

Burns believes the pseudo-roadblocks not only violate state law but may
be an infringement of constitutional rights involving search and
seizure. The difference of opinion between Burns and the UHP needs to
be resolved in court.

If the practice is found to be illegal, it will stop. If not, however,
the UHP and other law enforcement agencies, assuming they're supported
by their respective governing bodies, should be allowed to use
unorthodox methods to identify those who break the law.