Sobriety Roadblocks Sanctioned : Justices Let Stand Ruling OKing Driver Spot-Checks

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a challenge to the use of police roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, flashing a legal green light to a fast-spreading effort by states and localities to reduce alcohol-related death and injury on the highway.

The justices, in a brief order, let stand a Virginia Supreme Court ruling upholding sobriety spot-checks against the claim that they violate constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure.

Used in California

In recent years, such roadblocks have been used in more than 20 states, including California, where the California Highway Patrol and local law enforcement officers have set up temporary checkpoints during holidays and at other times.

State courts across the nation that have reviewed the issue have disagreed widely on the legality of such roadblocks. In California, a state Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld the use of checkpoints last December, declaring that the roadblocks, although “intrusive and burdensome,” are justified “by the magnitude of the drunk-driving hazard and the potential for deterrence and detection.” An appeal of that ruling is pending before the state Supreme Court.

Civil libertarians argue that checkpoints are an unwarranted invasion of the right to privacy, subjecting thousands of innocent drivers to temporary detention. Their defenders say that roadblocks effectively discourage drunk driving while posing only momentary inconveniences.

No Definitive Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled squarely on the issue. In 1979, the justices struck down the use of random, discretionary stops to check driver’s licenses and registrations. But they suggested that systematic spot-checks--such as stopping all drivers at a roadblock or halting every 10th car--are legal alternatives.

On Monday, the justices refused without dissent to review a petition from a motorist convicted of drunk driving after he was arrested at a checkpoint in Charlottesville, Va., in 1984. Their action, taken without oral argument or a written opinion, does not establish binding precedent, but its effect is to permit the continuance of such roadblocks.

In addition, the justices agreed to hear two cases next term that could set new guidelines on the use of evidence from police searches.

In one case (Illinois vs. Krull, 85-608), the court will determine the admissibility of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith under a state law later declared unconstitutional.

Illinois authorities are asking the court to expand a 1984 ruling to further ease the so-called “exclusionary rule,” the court-fashioned prohibition against the use in court of illegally obtained evidence. Two years ago, the justices, making an exception to the rule, said that such evidence may be used when police officers conduct a search in good faith under a warrant later found defective.

Searches of Cars

In the other case (Colorado vs. Bertine, 85-889), the court will decide the extent of police authority to search closed containers during so-called “inventory searches” of cars they impound in the course of arrests or other actions. In such searches, policemen routinely remove any dangerous items and secure valuables for safekeeping.

Colorado officials are appealing a state court ruling holding that cocaine and a large amount of cash found in metal canisters in a backpack left in a truck driven by a drunk-driving suspect may not be used to support drug charges against the driver.

In other action, the justices:

--Agreed in an important environmental case (International Paper vs. Ouellette, 85-1233) to decide whether a company may be sued outside its home state for polluting interstate waters. At issue is a federal appeals court decision allowing officials and residents of Vermont to proceed with a $120-million damage suit for alleged pollution of Lake Champlain by the New York-based International Paper Co. Federal courts have split over whether such suits are permissible under the federal Water Pollution Control Act.

--Announced that they would review the constitutionality of state laws that impose monetary penalties on defendants in lawsuits who lose appeals of verdicts. The Burlington Northern Railroad Co. was ordered to pay an Alabama couple an additional $30,500 after the company unsuccessfully appealed a $305,000 jury award for injuries the couple suffered in an accident. The railroad contends that the 10% penalty, imposed under an Alabama law aimed at curbing frivolous or time-consuming appeals, is invalid because it applies only to defendants--not plaintiffs--who lose appeals (Burlington Northern vs. Woods, 85-1088).