The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to clarify when police may use roadblocks to catch criminals.
The high court has already said that officers may set up sobriety checkpoints to randomly detect drunken drivers and border roadblocks to intercept illegal immigrants. But justices ruled in 2000 that random roadblocks intended for drug searches are an unreasonable invasion of privacy under the Constitution.
At issue in the latest case is whether police can set up checkpoints to seek information about a recent crime -- then arrest drunk drivers, people with drugs and others for wrongdoing.
The case stems from a 1997 checkpoint in Illinois, where officers were passing out leaflets seeking information about a fatal hit-and-run when they arrested a man for drunk driving.
The Illinois Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the roadblock amounted to an unconstitutional search of drivers, and that police could not stop drivers at random every time they needed tips about a crime. The court voided Robert Lidster’s conviction.
Illinois asked the high court to throw out that decision. 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.”
Lidster’s attorney, G. Joseph Weller, told justices that if the police wanted to seek information, they could have used other ways like radio and television stations.
Police set up the roadblock that caught Lidster 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 flyer asking for help.
Authorities said that when Lidster drove up to the checkpoint in Lombard, Ill., he nearly hit an officer.
The case is Illinois v. Lidster, case no. 02-1060.