Soviet America: Court OKs Roadblocks to Hunt Criminals

Submitted by Reverend Chuck0:

Court OKs Roadblocks to Hunt Criminals

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court gave police leeway Tuesday to use random roadblocks to track down criminals.

Justices said in the 6-3 ruling that police checkpoint stops, when used to seek information about recent crimes, do not violate the privacy rights of other motorists.

The court overturned a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, which had 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.

Justice Stephen Breyer said that "police appropriately tailored their checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs."

Three justices, however, expressed concerns that the ruling could open up motorists to police interference without yielding information about crimes.

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, disagreed with part of Breyer's ruling.

"There is a valid and important distinction" between seizing a person to determine whether he or she has committed a crime and seizing a person to ask whether that person "has any information about an unknown person who committed a crime a week earlier," Stevens wrote.

The case was a follow-up to a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that roadblocks intended for drug searches are an unreasonable invasion of privacy under the Constitution.

Breyer said that in this case, authorities were investigating a specific crime — and one that resulted in a death.

The Illinois checkpoints had been challenged by Robert Lidster, who was arrested and convicted of drunken driving after being stopped at a roadblock. The roadblock had been set up at the same spot and time of day that the hit-and-run took place, in hopes of getting tips. Authorities said that Lidster nearly hit an officer at the scene.

The ruling is a victory for Illinois and 14 other states which had asked the court to use the case to clarify how far police could go to seek information about crimes.

Breyer said that short stops, "a very few minutes at most" are not too intrusive on motorists. Police may hand out a flyer, or ask drivers to volunteer information about crimes, he said.

In the partial dissent, Stevens said that motorists will be trapped by the checkpoints.

"In contrast to pedestrians, who are free to keep walking when they encounter police officers handing out flyers or seeking information, motorists who confront a roadblock are required to stop, and to remain stopped for as long as the officers choose to detain them," he wrote.

The delays "may seem relatively innocuous to some, but annoying to others ... still other drivers may find an unpublicized roadblock at midnight on a Saturday somewhat alarming."

The three dissenting justices said the case should have been sent back to Illinois courts for more consideration.

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



___

On the Net: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/