JUSTICES REVIEWING RANDOM DRUG CHECKPOINTS

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, taking a new look at the privacy rights of
Americans in their cars, said Tuesday it will decide whether police can set
up random traffic checkpoints and stop motorists to search illegal drugs.

The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that said
checkpoints where Indianapolis police detained most motorists for about
three minutes likely amounted to unreasonable seizures in violation of the
Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

A decision, expected sometime next year, will provide the court's latest
word on the amendment's scope.

"This is a significant case, one that will define a city's power to conduct
random searches of vehicles whenever it perceives it has a problem," said
Kenneth Falk, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing two men
who challenged the police practice.

Falk said a ruling that allows such searches for drugs also could allow
random stops to find people who fail to make child-support payments or
people who have not paid traffic fines.

Police generally need a court warrant or a reason to suspect someone of a
crime before detaining them for several minutes.

But in past rulings, the nation's highest court allowed police to set up
sobriety checkpoints aimed at randomly detecting inebriated motorists and
border roadblocks to intercept illegal immigrants.

"Sobriety checkpoints are designed to remove unsafe vehicles from the road,
so they've been seen as regulatory in nature," Falk said. "That's not this
case."

Gary Secrest, a lawyer for the city, said the Supreme Court appeal was
filed to keep open all options for detecting and arresting people who use
or sell illegal drugs.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the checkpoints once used by
Indianapolis 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.

If Indianapolis police had reason to believe a terrorist was driving toward
the city in a car packed with dynamite, they could block all roads and stop
thousands of drivers "without suspecting any one of them with criminal
activity," the appeals court said.

"But no such urgency has been shown here."

The city began its "narcotics checkpoints" operation in the summer of 1998.

A predetermined number of cars were pulled over at one time and drivers
were asked to show police their licenses and car registration while
drug-sniffing dog walks around the parked cars.

In the program's first four months, police conducted six roadblocks in
high-crime areas and stopped 1,161 vehicles. The stops led to 104 arrests,
55 of them on drug-related charges.

Two Indianapolis residents, James Edmond and Joell Palmer, said in a suit
that the police tactics were unconstitutional.

A federal trial judge ruled that the city was not violating any rights. But
a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court reversed that ruling by a 2-1
vote in July.

The appeals court said the trial judge may find another reason to uphold
the checkpoint program, which has been suspended. "The high hit rate of
Indianapolis' roadblock scheme suggests 85 areas of the city in which drug
use approaches epidemic proportions. If so, the roadblocks may be
justified," it said.

The city's appeal urges the justices "to restore predictability and
rationality to the rules that guide" encounters between police and citizens.