Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 8, 1993 TAG: 9305080089
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But when Roanoke County police conducted drug searches of 105 cars at an interstate checkpoint, they did it with the blessing of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
\ Police checkpoints
In a 1990 decision upholding the legality of sobriety checkpoints aimed at arresting drunken drivers, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment gives little protection to people caught in roadblocks.
As long as all cars are stopped at a fixed point, police can briefly question motorists without any reasonable grounds to believe the individual is intoxicated, the court held.
The 6-3 ruling cited the magnitude of the drunken driving problem and the state's interest in eradicating it.
"Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale - the measure of intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints - is slight," the court held.
Justice William Brennan disagreed. "In the face of the `momentary evil' of drunken driving, the court . . . abdicates its role as the protector of the fundamental right of individual privacy," he wrote in a dissenting opinion.
\ \ Consent searches
Roanoke County police had to have the driver's permission to search the cars. Those who just said no were allowed to drive away.
Anyone can waive their constitutional rights and agree to a search, as long as consent is freely given.
What constitutes voluntary consent was the issue in a 1991 case that dealt with police searches of luggage belonging to bus passengers in Florida.
In an attempt to catch drug smugglers, the Broward County Police Department sent officers on randomly selected buses to ask passengers if they could search their luggage.
A man who was arrested with cocaine in his suitcase argued that passengers would not feel free to refuse a search - even if told they could - because of the close quarters of a bus.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument, ruling that the question of coercion depends on the particular circumstances of each case.
\ Automobile searches.
Police do not need a search warrant to search cars, as long as they have a reasonable belief of criminal activity.
In general, the Supreme Court has held that people have a reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles. The reason is that cars, unlike homes, are mobile and thus offer an easier means of escape.
To search a home or building, police must obtain a search warrant from a judge or magistrate, unless the owner consents. There is no such requirement for cars; police need only show they have probable cause.
In Thursday's checkpoint on Interstate 81, police had drug-sniffing dogs at the ready, under the theory that they might provide probable cause if a motorist refused to allow a search of his car.
by CNB