SJC RULES DRUG ROADBLOCKS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Roadblocks designed to find evidence of drug crimes are unconstitutional,
the state's highest court ruled this morning.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a case that involved a temporary drug
roadblock that was set up by police in Holyoke in November 1997.

Prosecutors argued that drug roadblocks are constitutional because of their
similarities to roadblocks set up to check on whether people are driving
drunk.

But the court said there were crucial distinctions between the two types of
roadblocks.

The court said sobriety checkpoints are a ``minimal and focused intrusion''
on people that are intended to remove a deadly and immediate menace from
the road.

Drug roadblocks, on the other hand, the court said, are generalized
searches to discover evidence of criminal activity, without probable cause
or reasonable suspicion.

``Absent an emergency or imminent threat to the lives and safety of the
public, roadblocks to interdict contraband violate'' the state
Constitution, Justice Ruth Abrams wrote in a 14-page opinion.

Abrams noted that Article 14, which gives people the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, was drafted in response to the blanket
search powers granted to the British by ``writs of assistance.''

``Viewed in light of the commonwealth's history, it is clear that the
Holyoke roadblock is precisely the type of search that the drafters of
Article 14 sought to prevent,'' she said.

The opinion noted that the same reasoning would also apply to roadblocks
set up for searches for other contraband, including unlawful guns.