Pubdate: Fri, 04 Jan 2002
Source: Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (TX)
Copyright: 2002 Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas
Contact:  http://www.star-telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/162
Author: Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?203 (Terrorism)

SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR CASE CLARIFYING POLICE POWERS DURING DRUG SEARCHES

Bush Administration Invoked The War On Terrorism As Reason To Take Case

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a case about 
police power to search passengers on public transportation, a case 
the Bush administration says applies to the war on terrorism.

The court said it will decide if police who want to look for drugs or 
evidence of other crimes must first must inform public transportation 
passengers of their legal rights. The ruling could clarify what 
police may and may not do as they approach and search a passenger.

Buses and trains are sometimes used by drug couriers. Airplanes are 
also commonly used to transport drugs, although it is not clear 
whether the Supreme Court's ruling would apply to plane passengers.

Without mentioning the Sept. 11 jetliner hijackings specifically, the 
Bush administration invoked the war on terrorism and the concern over 
airplane security in trying to persuade the high court to take the 
case.

"Programs that rely on consensual interactions between police 
officers and citizens on means of public transportation are an 
important part of the national effort to combat the flow of illegal 
narcotics and weapons," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote.

"In the current environment, they may also become an important part 
of preventing other forms of criminal activity that involve travel on 
the nation's system of public transportation," Olson wrote.

The high court previously ruled that police may not squeeze sealed 
luggage to hunt for drugs, and also said that police questioning 
aboard buses is not necessarily more coercive just because a 
passenger may have little room to move about.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the federal government argument that 
police officers in Tallahassee, Fla., were within their rights as 
they questioned and searched two men aboard a Greyhound bus in 1999.

Three officers boarded the bus, bound from Fort Lauderdale to 
Detroit. One officer knelt backward in the driver's seat, facing the 
passengers. The other two worked their way from the back of the bus 
forward, asking passengers about their travel plans and about their 
luggage.

An officer introduced himself to Christopher Drayton and Clifton 
Brown, and told them he was looking for illegal drugs and weapons. 
Drayton and Brown agreed to let officers search a bag in the overhead 
luggage rack, and it yielded no drugs or weapons.

Police then asked to pat down the men's baggy clothing. The men 
agreed, and officers felt hard objects on the men's legs that turned 
out to be packets of cocaine.

Both men were convicted and sentenced on drug charges.

On appeal, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the cocaine 
should not have been admitted as evidence, because the officers 
failed to tell the men they were not required to cooperate, or 
otherwise inform them of their rights.

The encounter violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable 
searches and seizures, in part because the men did not feel free to 
leave, the court said.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Olson said that appeals court 
decision threatens a common law enforcement tactic, and conflicts 
with other federal appeals courts.

The confusion has left federal, state and local law enforcement 
officers "without clear guidance on the boundaries of lawful bus, 
train and airplane interdiction practices," the government lawyer 
wrote.

Lawyers for Drayton and Brown urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case.

The lower court decision, "which merely required compliance with the 
Constitution and precedent of this court, was a sound application of 
well-established law," the lawyers for the two men argued. "Nothing 
in our recent national tragedies changed that."

The case is United States v. Drayton, 01-631.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh