High Court Takes Up Police Drug Checkpoints

Two years ago, motorists in Indianapolis often came upon a surprising scene.

A sign by the roadside warned: “Narcotics checkpoint ahead. K-9 in use. Be prepared to stop.”

Cars were met by a team of police officers. One spoke to the driver and asked to see a license and registration, while another led a drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle.

Most of the drivers were allowed to proceed after five minutes or so. About 9% were arrested for either a traffic offense or because illegal drugs were found.

Such drug checkpoints may become a familiar feature of many cities if the Supreme Court upholds the Indianapolis program. And that appeared to be a distinct possibility after Tuesday’s oral argument before the high court.

“Motor vehicles are deadly weapons potentially,” said Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, noting that police have broad powers to stop cars if they think the drivers might be drunk, drug-impaired or unlicensed.

Justice Antonin Scalia added that in his neighborhood in Fairfax County, Va., police stop cars to check to see if drivers have paid their vehicle taxes. “It’s a perfectly legitimate stop. And we don’t look further at the purpose.”

Civil Liberties Union Challenges Searches

The two questioned why the stops would be held unconstitutional just because the police were actually looking for drugs, not unlicensed drivers.

A lawyer for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union stressed that the police were not engaged in traffic enforcement but were looking for evidence of crime. And, traditionally, the 4th Amendment has barred police from searching people without some evidence they have done something wrong.

“This has a criminal investigative purpose. It is stopping bad guys carrying drugs, not drugged drivers,” said Kenneth J. Falk, the civil liberties lawyer.

If the police are free to stop all motorists to look for drugs, he added, “we will soon have seizure of persons on the streets.”

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down the drug checkpoints on a 2-1 vote. Chief Judge Richard Posner said the “purpose of the roadblocks [was] to catch drug offenders,” not traffic offenders.

A decade ago, the high court upheld sobriety roadblocks in a Michigan case, ruling the police had good reason to get drunken drivers off the highways.

Tuesday’s case, City of Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 99-1030, appears to turn on whether the drug roadblocks are seen as traffic enforcement or criminal searches.

The hourlong argument swayed back and forth.

At first, the justices sounded troubled at giving the police unlimited power to conduct dragnet searches of cars.

Scalia Initially Appears Skeptical

In a high-crime area, “can you stop all the cars to see if they have burglar tools?” asked Scalia, sounding skeptical.

But a Justice Department lawyer, supporting Indianapolis, pointed out that the police check the licenses and vehicle registrations, and these are legitimate reasons for stopping cars. This argument seemed to turn the court in the city’s favor.

Recently, the justices have shown a renewed interest in the 4th Amendment and the war on drugs. Today, they will hear an unusual case from South Carolina in which the hospital and police combined to arrest pregnant women who tested positive for cocaine.