JUSTICES TO REVIEW POLICE 'NARCOTICS CHECKPOINTS'

Law: Supreme Court will consider reinstituting Indianapolis policy. Law
enforcement officials say effect on motorists not carrying drugs is minimal.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, which already has given law enforcement
broad powers to fight the war on drugs, agreed Tuesday to consider reviving
a police policy of using routine roadblocks to check for narcotics.

A case from Indianapolis, to be heard in the fall, is the first to test the
constitutionality of "narcotics checkpoints."

If the city prevails, local and state police will have the option of using
these roadblocks widely or just in high-crime areas.

Police say the impact on innocent motorists is minimal. They are stopped
and questioned for several minutes while a drug-sniffing dog circles the
vehicle. If the motorist is alert and no drugs are found, the car is sent
on its way, officials said.

During the summer of 1998, police in Indianapolis set up these drug
roadblocks at several locations around the city. Police said 9% of the
stops resulted in an arrest.

But the drug roadblocks were challenged by two motorists as a violation of
their 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Last
year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago agreed in a 2-1 vote and
declared the policy unconstitutional.

Police may stop cars for safety reasons, such as detecting drunk drivers,
wrote Judge Richard Posner. But since the drug roadblocks do not involve
highway safety, but rather are a search for criminal evidence, a policy of
randomly searching innocent persons is unconstitutional, he concluded. A
renowned antitrust expert, Posner is now mediating the dispute between
Microsoft and the Justice Department.

In their appeal, lawyers for Indianapolis noted that the high court in the
past had upheld "sobriety roadblocks" as well as the immigration checkpoint
on Interstate 5 north of San Diego. In both instances, innocent persons are
stopped briefly. Narcotics checkpoints are similar and also should be
upheld, they argued.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear the case
of City of Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 99-1030.

Since the mid-1980s, the court regularly has sided with law enforcement in
drug cases. For example, the justices upheld the use of "drug courier
profiles," which are used as a basis to stop people in airports and train
depots.

Four years ago, the court ruled that police can use minor traffic offenses,
such as failing to stop completely at a stop sign, as a pretext to pull
over a vehicle to search for drugs. Once the car is stopped, the police can
force the motorist and passengers to step out and then search the entire
vehicle.

Critics say that thanks to these rulings, the police power to enforce
traffic laws has been transformed into a general police power to search for
drugs on the roadways. Moreover, this search authority has been used
disproportionately against black and Latino motorists, civil libertarians say.

[snip]