Home » » Criminal Law » Drug Roadblock II

Drug Roadblock II

© Richard C. Cleary

In August 2000 this Criminal Law site discussed the case of City of Indianapolis v. Edmond a matter taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding so-called drug roadblocks. In November 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case. The decision has breathed new life into the Fourth Amendment.

Between August and November of 1998 the Indianapolis police stopped 1,161 motorists and made 104 arrests. Of these, 55 were for drug offenses and 49 were for other reasons. When the motorists challenged the stops the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city asserting that the stops violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority stated “the general rule that a seizure must be accompanied by some measure of individualized suspicion.” O’Connor distinguished between traffic enforcement and crime fighting. “We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.” "Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. There are special circumstances, in addition to traffic enforcement, that allow for roadblocks. Officers can set up roadblocks to stop a fleeing criminal. Further, in airports and government buildings metal detectors may be used to protect public safety. If crime fighting only is the purpose of the roadblocks the Fourth Amendment requires the police to obtain individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, according to Justice O’Connor. She was joined in her opinion by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. In his dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "These stops effectively serve the state's legitimate interests: They are executed in a regularized and neutral manner; and they only minimally intrude upon the privacy of motorists." Rehnquist was joined by justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Most law enforcement officials and prosecutors, although not pleased by the decision, believed it would have little impact on drug arrests. But Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, decried the decision stating police should be able to use whatever "innovative tactics" are deemed necessary to fight drugs, so long as they are constitutional. Despite O’Connor’s careful language in her opinion, narrowly tailored to the facts of the case, Pasco claimed the Supreme Court opinion would affect other "blanket" interdiction efforts, such as those used at airports that commonly screen passengers with bomb-sniffing equipment and metal detectors before entering airline terminals.

The copyright of the article Drug Roadblock II in Criminal Law is owned by . Permission to republish Drug Roadblock II in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.