COURT SHOULD STOP SEARCHES AT RANDOM

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case involving random
traffic stops to look for illegal drugs, it will either buttress the Fourth
Amendment or nibble away at our rights, all in the name of the continuing
war on drugs.

The Fourth Amendment protects us specifically from "unreasonable searches
and seizures" and states that searches are allowed only with warrants that
"shall issue, but upon probable cause."

The case the high court will review is an appeal by the city of
Indianapolis of a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals against the
city's policy of setting up roadside traffic stops similar to sobriety
checkpoints. At these traffic stops, however, police officers are checking
drivers for signs of impairment while drug-sniffing dogs are led around the
vehicle to check for illegal drugs.

Keep in mind, nothing these drivers did had aroused suspicion, they just
happened to be driving along the wrong stretch of road at the wrong time.
No police officer would randomly search downtown shoppers on the chance
they might be carrying illegal drugs. Why should things be different if
that same shopper were in a car?

Previous Supreme Court decisions have upheld the right of government to
institute sobriety checkpoints because the idea behind them is to take
dangerous drivers off the road. That falls under the state's regulatory
responsibility to ensure traffic safety on public roadways. The appeals
court noted that Indianapolis hadn't shown there were "urgent
considerations of public safety" to justify its use of the random traffic
stops. That's because there is no safety issue here. What these searches
are designed to do is apprehend citizens who are in possession of illegal
drugs. Stopping every car in an arbitrarily selected area would seem to be
a violation of our right to be free from unreasonable searches.

That these traffic stops aim to look for illegal drugs isn't a valid reason
to abridge rights. If this policy is allowed to remain in force, what is to
prevent the police from stopping every car driving down Western Boulevard
to check the trunk, say, for stolen merchandise? The intent is the same, to
look for evidence of a crime, not to ensure safe motoring. Police only
should have the authority to look for such evidence after they know a crime
has been committed, such as searching cars in the vicinity of a prison
after an escape or around a bank after a robbery.

Some might argue that such traffic stops are only a small inconvenience and
if a person has nothing to hide, there is no problem. Yet, if we allow the
government to take our rights in small pieces it will end up with them all.
James Madison worried that freedom of the people would not be taken all at
once but rather by "gradual and silent encroachment."

It's interesting to note that under the Indianapolis policy that sparked
the suit, 10 checkpoints stopped 1,847 cars which led to 134 citations for
traffic offenses or misdemeanor marijuana possession. Extending that ratio
to the general motoring public indicates fewer than 8 percent of
Indianapolis drivers are carrying drugs, and even then only in small
quantities. Hardly what we'd call probable cause. Certainly too small a
return for the powers that be to laud the program as an efficient tool in
the war on drugs. And definitely not worth surrendering a cherished right.