Pubdate: Wed, 01 Mar 2000
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
Copyright: 2000 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Contact:  P.O. Box 1909, Seattle, WA 98111-1909
Website: http://www.seattle-pi.com/
Author:  Mark Helm, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Washington Bureau

UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AT ISSUE IN CASES BEFORE SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices asked tough questions Tuesday when
they heard arguments on when police may stop and frisk people who do not
appear to have broken the law.

In a case from Miami, police received an anonymous tip in 1995 that three
young black men were at a bus stop and that one, who was wearing a plaid
shirt, was toting a gun. When officers arrived, they saw nothing suspicious
but patted down the young man with the plaid shirt and found a gun.

A Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the search, based only on the
anonymous tip, was unconstitutional.

In another case from Sierra Blanca, Texas, a federal border patrol agent
was checking passengers' immigration status on a Greyhound bus at a border
checkpoint there in 1997. The agent started feeling suitcases in the
overhead rack and came upon a brick-like object that turned out to be a
pack of the drug methamphetamine.

A federal appeals court upheld the search last year, saying the passenger
should not have expected that his luggage in the rack would stay completely
private.

In both cases, the high court justices will have to decide whether officers
may conduct a search when they lack any specific reason to believe a crime
has occurred.

How the court rules could have a major impact on the safety of officers who
often are caught off-guard by concealed firearms as they try to combat drug
trafficking and violent crimes.

But the decision could also affect the rights of people, particularly those
living in high-crime areas, who say that aggressive police tactics encroach
on their privacy and deprive innocent citizens of their freedom.

Representing the young man, known only as "J.L.," in the Miami case,
attorney Harvey Sepler told the court that allowing police to search any
person -- regardless of his or her behavior -- because an anonymous tipster
says that person has a gun would mean "the end" of the Fourth Amendment.
That amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable searches."

But several justices questioned whether ignoring an anonymous tip
concerning a weapon could endanger the public.

"What if the police get a tip that a student has brought a gun into a
school and plans to use it that day?" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked.
"Should the police just ignore this information and possibly let students
and teachers be killed?"

Justice Stephen Breyer asked if police should ignore a tip that a man
standing outside a crowded courthouse had a bomb under his shirt.

Sepler said the court could make exceptions for "extreme situations" but
that it should write its decision with "everyday situations" in mind, and
that meant not allowing police to search a person with only an anonymous
tip for a reason.

The justices were just as tough on Florida Assistant Attorney General
Michael Neimand who urged them to give law enforcement officials on the
scene the flexibility to assess, on a case-by-case basis, the potential for
the immediate and lethal use of a weapon by a suspect.

But Justice Antonin Scalia asked what would stop police from abusing the
anonymous-tip rule.

"Anytime a cop suspects someone of carrying drugs or a gun but doesn't have
any evidence, all that he has to do is go to a pay phone, call the police
station and within a few minutes, his fellow officers will be searching
that person, despite having no real reason other than the 'anonymous' tip,"
Scalia said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Eric Ernst