COURT TO STUDY TRAFFIC STOPS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court today agreed to decide whether police
routinely can set up traffic checkpoints and stop motorists in hopes of
catching people who sell or use illegal drugs.

The justices will review a federal appeals court ruling that said
checkpoints where Indianapolis police detained most motorists for about
three minutes likely amounted to unreasonable and unlawful seizures.

At issue is the scope of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment and its
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the checkpoints formerly 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 are pulled over at one time and drivers
are 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, challenged the
program in a lawsuit that called the police tactics 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 last 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 ... areas of the city in which drug
use approaches epidemic proportions. If so, the roadblocks may be
justified,'' it said.

In the appeal acted on today, city officials said federal and state courts
are deeply divided over the legitimacy of such initiatives. They urged the
justices ``to restore predictability and rationality to the rules that
guide'' encounters between police and citizens.

But lawyers for the program's challengers said most courts have barred
police from setting up checkpoints ``whose sole purpose is to investigate
criminal activity.'' Courts are deeply split only over those checkpoint
programs that combine routine traffic-law regulation and drug interdiction,
they said.

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