JUSTICES AGREE TO RULE ON RANDOM ROADBLOCKS

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Monday it will give police clearer
rules for using random roadblocks to track down criminals without violating
the privacy rights of other motorists.

The court will hear arguments next fall on whether police can set up
checkpoints to seek information about a recent crime, then arrest drivers
for unrelated wrongdoing.

Three years ago, justices curbed the use of random roadblocks for general
law enforcement. Illinois, supported by 14 other states, asked the court to
clarify how far police may go.

Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen said the case will be
significant, as justices "either tighten up or loosen up the power of the
government to do a dragnet, stopping everybody."

The Supreme Court already has said officers may set up random sobriety
checkpoints to detect drunken drivers and border roadblocks to intercept
illegal immigrants. But justices ruled in 2000 that roadblocks intended for
drug searches are an unreasonable invasion of privacy under the
Constitution. The court held that law enforcement in and of itself is not a
good enough reason to stop innocent motorists.

Under the court's rulings, roadblocks are allowed for emergencies, like the
interstate shutdowns during the three-week sniper shooting spree in the
Washington, D.C., area last fall.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that it was not an emergency in 1997 when
officers stopped cars at an intersection outside Chicago to pass out
leaflets seeking information about a fatal hit-and-run.

The state court said police could not stop drivers at random every time
they needed tips about a crime.The court voided Robert Lidster's conviction
for drunken driving.

Police set up the roadblock at the same spot and time of day that the
hit-and-run took place. They hoped to find someone who used the route and
had seen the accident. Police stopped each car for 10 to 15 seconds - long
enough to mention the accident and hand out a flier asking for help.

Authorities said that when Lidster drove up he nearly hit an officer.

Lidster's attorney, G. Joseph Weller, told justices that if the police
wanted to seek information, they could have used other methods, like
newspapers and radio and television stations.

Illinois state attorney William Browers argued in court filings that police
should not be barred from "performing their historic, normal and necessary
functions of trying to find witnesses to a known crime."

Richard Frase, a criminal law professor at the University of Minnesota,
said roadblocks can help police in some crime fighting, but "any time you
run a roadblock, you're inconveniencing a lot of innocent people."

The case is Illinois v. Lidster, 02-1060.