JUSTICES WEIGH ROADBLOCKS AGAIN

Two years ago, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the state's roadblock statute,
but said police must focus on highway-safety tasks -- such as identifying
drunken drivers -- rather than looking for drugs or other ordinary criminal
wrongdoing.

But as police have struggled to understand that ruling and test its limits,
the roadblock issue was once again before the high court Tuesday. Justices
heard arguments in an appeal challenging the use of drug sniffing dogs at a
roadblock ostensibly to promote highway safety.

In the original 3-2 ruling in favor of driver Henry Thomas DeBooy, Justice
Christine Durham wrote in 2000 that "multi-purpose, general warrantlike
intrusions on the privacy of persons using the highways are unacceptable."

On Tuesday, Assistant Utah Attorney General Joanne Slotnik called the
DeBooy decision "somewhat ambiguous."

Slotnik argued that limiting roadblocks to a single purpose is unworkable.
An officer authorized by a judge to check driver sobriety, for instance,
cannot ignore other obvious violations of the law, such as the lack of
seat-belt use, she said.

The latest roadblock case before the court stems from the arrest of Robert
Nate Abell, 40, of Colorado, in March 2000, a month after the high court
released its decision in the appeal by DeBooy, also of Colorado.

Although Abell has been sentenced on several charges, he is still
challenging the legality of the roadblock that led to his arrest and a
judge's decision to allow prosecutors to use drugs seized from his car as
evidence.

Prior to arresting Abell, Utah Highway Patrol troopers obtained a judge's
permission to set up a roadblock four miles west of Salina on Interstate 70
to target several highway safety issues, including driver impairment,
seat-belt use, exterior vehicle safety equipment and the validity of car
license plates, registrations and insurance.

But in an attempt to comply with the DeBooy ruling, officers sought to
limit the intrusive nature of the roadblock by restricting the time spent
on each stop to 30 seconds.

That was enough time to bust Abell, who was arrested after a trooper
smelled the odor of burnt marijuana from inside the car and noticed Abell
seemed nervous.

Drug-sniffing dogs focused on Abell's luggage, which contained 10 grams of
cocaine and less than 2 grams of marijuana.

At a later evidence suppression hearing in Richfield's 6th District Court,
defense attorney J. Bryan Jackson argued police went beyond their
checkpoint plan by having drug-sniffing dogs at the roadblock. Jackson also
says officers were discriminating by stopping only cars from Colorado.

Judge K.L. McIff upheld the evidence seizure, noting that dogs were
employed only after the officer smelled evidence of drug use, and that cars
from a number of other states had been stopped.

Abell pleaded guilty to drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia,
driving under the influence, speeding and driving without a seat belt.
McIff placed him on probation, including 90 days in jail and a $1,500 fine.

The Utah Supreme Court took Tuesday's arguments under advisement after
hearing from Slotnick. Jackson submitted his arguments in writing. Slotnik
told The Tribune that police officers want clear guidelines for conducting
roadblocks.

"You don't want to be infringing on people's freedom," Slotnik said. "How
much or how little do we have to change the plan to reach
constitutionality? Where do you draw the line?"