WASHINGTON — In a victory for law enforcement, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may set up roadblocks to seek motorists’ help in solving a recent crime.
The 6-3 decision is likely to encourage greater use of roadblocks to obtain tips from the public and to look for witnesses — in hopes of learning, for example, who caused an accident, where to find a missing child or who committed a robbery or murder.
Until now, the legality of these roadblocks had been in doubt.
Snohomish County law enforcement agencies rarely use roadblocks, police said Tuesday.
Authorities have set up roadblocks to check cars after escapes from the Monroe Correctional Complex, Washington State Patrol Trooper Lance Ramsay said. But the State Patrol hasn’t used them to check for drunken drivers.
"That’s used more back east, and I’m jealous of that," Ramsay said. "I think it’s a great thing to do. A lot of people have concerns about privacy, but if you’re on the road, and there’s a checkpoint for DUIs, I think you’d be happy we’re doing everything possible to keep the roads safe."
The Supreme Court in the past had upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints on the highways to detect and arrest drunken drivers. The court said this was a reasonable traffic safety measure.
Four years ago, the justices struck down the use of roadblocks as a means to search for drugs and drug dealers. But Tuesday’s decision dealt with what the government called "informational checkpoints." The purpose of these roadblocks was not to make arrests, but to gather information.
The case at issue stemmed from an Aug. 30, 1997, incident where police in Lombard, Ill., set up a checkpoint at the scene of a fatal hit-and-run accident. One motorist, Robert Lidster, swerved and nearly drove into one of the officers at the checkpoint. When he was pulled aside, an officer smelled alcohol, and Lidster failed a sobriety test. He was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.
When Lidster appealed, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed his conviction and ruled the roadblock was an unconstitutional search. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the state court decision and upheld the use of these roadblocks as a reasonable means to gather information.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in part, saying that whether such searches would yield useful information was "speculative at best."
Herald writer Katherine Schiffner contributed to this report.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
