Posted on 05/05/2003 8:53:11 PM PDT by Happy2BMe
|
High Court to Rule on Police Roadblocks
|
|
By The Associated Press
|
| WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Monday it will give police clearer rules for using random roadblocks to track down criminals without violating the privacy rights of other motorists. The court will hear arguments next fall on whether police can set up checkpoints to seek information about a recent crime, then arrest drivers for unrelated wrongdoing. Three years ago, justices curbed the use of random roadblocks for general law enforcement. Illinois, supported by 14 other states, asked the court to clarify how far police may go. Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen said the case will be significant, as justices ``either tighten up or loosen up the power of the government to do a dragnet, stopping everybody.'' The Supreme Court already has said officers may set up random sobriety checkpoints to detect drunken drivers and border roadblocks to intercept illegal immigrants. But justices ruled in 2000 that roadblocks intended for drug searches are an unreasonable invasion of privacy under the Constitution. The court held that law enforcement in and of itself is not a good enough reason to stop innocent motorists. Under the court's rulings, roadblocks are allowed for emergencies, like the interstate shutdowns during the three-week sniper shooting spree in the Washington, D.C., area last fall. The Illinois Supreme Court 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. The state court said police could not stop drivers at random every time they needed tips about a crime.The court voided Robert Lidster's conviction for drunken driving. Police set up the roadblock at the same spot and time of day that the hit-and-run took place. They hoped to find someone who used the route and had seen the accident. Police stopped each car for 10 to 15 seconds - long enough to mention the accident and hand out a flier asking for help. Authorities said that when Lidster drove up he nearly hit an officer. Lidster's attorney, G. Joseph Weller, told justices that if the police wanted to seek information, they could have used other methods, like newspapers and radio and television stations. Illinois state attorney William Browers argued in court filings that police should not be barred from ``performing their historic, normal and necessary functions of trying to find witnesses to a known crime.'' Richard Frase, a criminal law professor at the University of Minnesota, said roadblocks can help police in some crime fighting, but ``any time you run a roadblock, you're inconveniencing a lot of innocent people.'' The case is Illinois v. Lidster, 02-1060. |
Yeah, that fourth amendment just for crooks. The second one too.
And the first amendment's for pervs.
Click here to read "THE CHECKPOINT," about a police road block operation that goes totally out of control.
Maybe you should get a fake rubber foot or hand ahd have it sticking out from the ene of a role of carpeting in the back seat next time.
“Checkpoint!” Ranya said. “One of the FIST checkpoints, it’s got to be.” The FIST program, for “Firearms Inspections Stop Terrorism” was the brainchild of Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney Eric Sanderson.
This is exactly what random checkpoints would eventually be used for. FIST is an appropriate acronym for what happens to citizens in these circumstances.
What would have happened if you'd cracked you window about an eigth of an inch to pass him the doucments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.