dictionary

Justices hear arguments on constitutionality of drug roadblock program

By Raju Chebium
CNN.com Correspondent

WASHINGTON -- An attorney for the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, told the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday the city's drug-search roadblocks did not violate motorists' Fourth Amendment rights because the court has upheld similar programs.

Indianapolis City Attorney Scott Chinn also said the roadblocks should be approved because they served a purpose beyond pure law enforcement: increased public safety.

VIDEO CNN's Charles Bierbauer explains a U.S. Supreme Court case that may decide if random drug searches are Constitutional Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)     ALSO   • Court Report: CNN's Charles Bierbauer previews the term   • The 2000-2001 term begins   QUICKVOTE Do you think a checkpoint with drug-sniffing dogs is unreasonable? Yes No View Results   DOCUMENTS City of Indianapolis v. Edmond Read the briefs and 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling

Supreme Court Center   Court History   The Justices   Landmark Decisions   Court opinions: Party name: Full-text: Law Dictionary

The Indianapolis Civil Liberties Union sued the city in 1998 to block the program, alleging that it violated motorists' Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" because police officers had no "probable cause" for the searches, as the amendment mandates.

Chinn, arguing in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, said the roadblocks were designed primarily to catch motorists transporting drugs into the city. But the program's greater purpose was to make the city safer, which meets the Supreme Court's "special needs" test for no-cause checkpoints to be constitutional, he said.

"Carrying drugs in cars is important to foster the drug trade in Indianapolis," he said. "It's clearly true that Indianapolis wants to check for drugs."

Two other purposes the August-November 1998 roadblock program served, according to Chinn: check whether drivers were under the influence of narcotics and if they had valid driver's licenses and registrations. The Indianapolis program closely resembled sobriety and driver's license checkpoints the high court approved in 1990, the city argued in legal papers.

Some justices questioned whether approving the Indianapolis program would open the floodgates to more intrusive police searches.

"If we sustain the searches here ... I suppose we would also have to uphold foot stops, pedestrian stops," Justice David Souter said. "I don't know why the same reasoning can't be used to stop people on the street."

Justice Antonin Scalia said the city seemed to be saying police have the right to pull over motorists anywhere to curtail crime. At a traffic light, an officer could "stop the car and say, 'May I see your papers, please?' That's kind of scary," Scalia said.

Chinn said pedestrians have higher expectation of privacy, so stopping them without cause clearly would be unconstitutional. But motorists, he pointed out, expect the authorities will stop them more often.

He argued that the city's program was constitutional under guidelines drawn by two prior high court rulings -- U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte in 1976 and Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz in 1990.

In Martinez-Fuerte, the court said a checkpoint is legal if authorities have a purposes beyond pure criminal law enforcement, according to the city's filings. That case involved the legality of U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints to deter illegal immigration.

In Michigan, which involved driver's license and sobriety checkpoints, the court affirmed the Martinez-Fuerte ruling, adding that checkpoints are legal as long as the officers do not target particular motorists, according to the filings.

The opposing side's arguments

Kenneth Falk, ICLU legal director, said the city violated the Fourth Amendment because "there is no cause here ... no criminal investigatory cause."

Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities must have good reason to search someone, Falk said in an interview last month. But the court granted narrow exceptions in the case of immigration checkpoints and sobriety and driver's license roadblocks, he acknowledged.

The Indianapolis program would have survived constitutional challenges if its intent had been to keep drugged drivers off the road, he told the court Tuesday. It is unconstitutional because of its primary intent of catching criminals, as evidenced by the use of drug-sniffing dogs.

Souter asked, "Does the addition of the dog raise a constitutional suspicion?"

Falk replied, "When you add the dog, there is only one purpose. The dog can't check licenses."

Scalia, noting that the court has said a dog sniffing outside a vehicle is not a "search," asked Falk, "What's not permissible about using a dog?"

Details of the program

City officials posted notices on roadways announcing the checkpoints, which the police set up in six high-crime areas, according to the city's court filings.

Officers stopped 1,161 vehicles, making 109 arrests -- 55 for carrying drugs and 54 for other violations, according to Chinn and court papers.

Officers checked the license and registration of each motorist and walked drug-sniffing dogs around the outside of the vehicles. Each "minimally intrusive" stop took two to three minutes, Chinn said in an interview last month.

Officers did not search any vehicle unless the dogs alerted them to the presence of drugs or officers had other means to establish probable cause -- if the officer saw drugs in the car, for example, or the driver admitted transporting drugs, Chinn said.

The ICLU filed the class-action lawsuit in October 1998. The lawsuit names motorists James Edmond and Joell Palmer and applies to the whole class of people who were stopped and searched.

The ICLU lost at the trial court level in Indiana, but prevailed at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in July 1999.

Supreme Court to decide if drug checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment
September 27, 2000
Police search sets motorist on road to Supreme Court
September 27, 2000
Judge orders emergency hearing on FBI's Carnivore
August 2, 2000
ACLU: Block FBI e-snoops
July 17, 2000
Rewriting the fourth amendment
May 12, 2000

City of Indianapolis / Marion County Home Page
Indiana Civil Liberties Union
U.S. Department of Justice

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.