JUDGE RULES AGAINST DRUG STOPS

The State Patrol's action at rest areas violates constitutional
rights, he says.

A Polk County judge ruled Friday that the Iowa State Patrol has gone
too far in its drug stings at rest stops.

The troopers had questioned drivers last July merely because they had
pulled over after seeing signs on Interstate Highway 80 that warned,
"Drug Stop 4 Miles Ahead."

There was no drug stop. Instead, plainclothes troopers were waiting at
the Mitchellville rest stop to see who pulled in to hide or dispose of
drugs before getting to the supposed checkpoint.

Violated Rights

District Judge Robert Blink said the deceptive signs and the troopers'
procedures violated constitutional rights against unreasonable
searches and seizures.

The State Patrol has used the tactic successfully at other rest stops.
In October troopers arrested 100 people on drug or weapons charges
after the motorists saw the signs on I-80 and pulled over near Wilton.

Civil libertarians have criticized the practice as unconstitutional,
saying the signs create a situation in which law-abiding drivers can
appear guilty. The State Patrol did not return calls seeking comment
on the ruling. Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office is
exploring an appeal.

Stopped Last Summer

The ruling came in the case of Russell R. Callison of Newton, who was
arrested in the Mitchellville operation last summer. His lawyer,
Winston E. Hobson, said troopers were "fishing" when they stopped his
client. He called the ruling - along with a recent U.S. Supreme Court
case - a victory against growing police power in the state.

"The war on drugs has unleashed some forces that we're hoping to
contain," Hobson said.

Callison stopped at the Mitchellville rest area after seeing the signs
and fearing a roadblock was ahead. He placed marijuana in his trunk.

But troopers admitted they never saw Callison put anything in the
trunk. They said they stopped him because of a missing license plate.

The troopers began questioning Callison about drugs. Callison, who
says he believed he was under arrest, helped open the trunk, where the
troopers found the drugs.

Blink ruled that the troopers had relied on their ability to search a
car when only issuing a traffic citation. In December the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that the practice was unconstitutional in the case of
another Newton man, Patrick Knowles.

The decision to stop, question or search people also was arbitrary,
Blink ruled. Troopers apparently questioned drivers whether or not
they had committed motor vehicle violations, and there were no
criteria that established what questions the officers would ask.

The patrol's practices also violated court rulings that say law
officers must follow certain requirements in checkpoints, Blink said.
There were no barricades, uniformed officers, or police lights. The
stops also were unreasonable because troopers could detain selected
motorists for more than a few seconds and could extensively search
their cars, he said.

Blink cautioned that his ruling does not condemn a rest-stop search
based on probable cause that a crime was being committed.