In another blow to personal freedom the high court held today (6-3 opinion by Beyer) that the police may use random roadblocks to seek information regarding recent specific crimes. The case is Illiniois v. Lidster, the opinion is here. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The police had set up a highway checkpoint (roadblock) to try and obtain information about a hit and run resulting in a death a week earlier. The checkpoint was in the same location and at about the same time as the earlier incident. Police stopped each approaching vehicle, asked if the occupants knew anything about the hit and run and passed out a flyer with contact information. Lister swerved while approaching and the officer smelled alcohol. Following filed sobriety tests Lister was arrested for driving under the influence.

In Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court held that absent special circumstances, the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from stopping people at a checkpoint set up primarily for general “crime control” purposes unless they have individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. The Court distinguished that opinion today, holding that

Specifically, the checkpoint in Edmond was designed to ferret out drug crimes committed by the motorists themselves. Here, the stop’s primary law enforcement purpose was not to determine whether a vehicle’s occupants were committing a crime, but to ask the occupants, as members of the public, for help in providing information about a crime in all likelihood committed by others.

Perhaps of most concern is the “reasonableness factor” the court uses. The Court said: