|
||||
|
Dec. 28, 2000 By Jim Mimiaga Planet Bluegrass, the concert organization that puts on the popular Telluride Bluegrass Festival, is claiming that a narcotics checkpoint set up by the Dolores County Sheriff’s Department last summer outside the venue violated the constitutional rights of concertgoers. Planet Bluegrass filed a notice of intent to sue Dec. 12 with the Dolores sheriff and county commission for conducting the checkpoint, which took place on June 16 and 17 on Highway 145 just past Rico. The Montezuma and La Plata County sheriff’s departments and the Cortez Police Department assisted in the checkpoint, but were not named in the notice. The claimants are requesting possible monetary damages of $5,000 per plaintiff as well as assurances that the sheriff’s department will refrain from future drug checkpoints. If no settlement occurs, the organization may officially file the class-action suit, supported by complainants involved in the searches. "We can’t ignore this," said Craig Ferguson, festival director of Planet Bluegrass, last Thursday. "Without an agreement we are committed to pursuing the suit to protect the constitutional rights of our customers and our reputation of putting on non-violent, peaceful concerts in Telluride." He said there are hundreds of complainants willing to sign up for the class-action suit if no agreement is reached. Their case is backed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled narcotic checkpoints conducted in and around Indianapolis were in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. "That was an important factor because it clearly shows that these types of stops are not legal," Ferguson said, adding that Planet Bluegrass is concerned that the checkpoint seemed to "profile the festival participants in particular" because of its location and timing. In a 6-3 opinion handed down Nov. 28, the Supreme Court ruled in Indianapolis v. James Edmond that narcotic checkpoints are unconstitutional because they target so-called "ordinary criminal wrongdoing." According to the decision, roadblocks can only be legally established for keeping drunk drivers off the road and for intercepting illegal immigrants on roadways within 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. But the court opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Conner states that while the above-mentioned reasons have been upheld by the courts, narcotics checkpoints have not because the intentions are based on a "high level of generality." The high court warned in its ruling that if the stops for narcotics were legally allowed then "there would be little check on the authorities’ ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law-enforcement purpose." But supporters of the June checkpoint argue that it was in compliance with all constitutional laws because it specifically targeted traffic offenders, with the premise of preventing drug-trafficking known to occur in the area during that time. Drivers breaking any of some 600 traffic laws — which range from speeding and swerving, to relatively minor offenses such as cracked windshields and dirty license plates — were stopped and ticketed. Those vehicles were then searched for narcotics with either permission from the owner or based on probable cause established with the aid of drug-sniffing dogs and officer observation of suspicious activity. "It was a strategically-placed traffic-observation site, not a roadblock per se," explained Lt. Kalvin Boggs of the Montezuma County sheriff’s department, which participated in the event under the local drug task force. "It was within the bounds of the law because the Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints are illegal if those targeted have not committed any violation, but that was not the case with ours. Everyone pulled over had some sort of traffic offense." Responding to accusations that police singled out summer concert participants known as "Festifarians," Boggs asserted that there was not such profiling because only those observed violating traffic laws were stopped. "It was a good location," Boggs explained. "We know that countless amounts of illegal drugs travel into San Miguel County during that time of year. It is basically a disgruntled lawsuit, and we won’t be scared off by it because certain groups are against our efforts to fight drug-trafficking." According to the Dove Creek Press, Dolores County Sheriff Jerry Martin plans to continue with the drug checkpoints, describing the pending lawsuit to the commissioners as a landmark case that needs to go to trial. And he has their support. Dolores County Commiss-ioner Leroy Gore said he is confident the procedure will pass constitutional muster, and supports plans to continue with the narcotics-intervention tactic. "The sheriff told me everything was done by the book and I believe him," Gore said. "If they are comfortable with doing it next year then I support them." The checkpoint resulted in eight felony arrests for possession of psilocybin mushrooms or large amounts of marijuana. In addition, 13 citations were written for persons possessing smaller amounts of marijuana or drug paraphernalia, and 10 traffic citations were given. Witnesses of the roadblock reported that a sign was posted informing drivers of a "Narcotic Checkpoint Ahead." One witness, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that he was apprehended after an officer with a video camera filmed him hiding a small amount of marijuana in the woods before driving on towards the checkpoint. "It was really embarrassing because my family was with me and saw me arrested and carted off. It ruined my trip and I had to endure court fines," he said. "Of course if I would have had a trunk load of whiskey and guns, then I would have been waved through and there would be no problem." "A lot of people see this as very un-American," Ferguson said. "We are incensed that our customers, who have taken a week’s vacation to come to our event with their families, arrive only to get yanked over and sniffed up by armed men in camouflage with dogs circling about. "That is scary and is exactly the kind of invasive tactic that the U.S. Constitution was meant to prevent." |
||||
|
Copyright © 2000 the Cortez Journal.
All rights reserved. |
