Pubdate: Tue, 25 Mar 2003
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: Associated Press

Law

SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP CASE OF TRAFFIC-STOP ARREST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider the scope of 
police power to arrest all occupants of a car during a traffic stop, 
agreeing to look at a case from Maryland in which everyone in a car denied 
knowledge of drugs and a roll of cash found inside.

Separately, the Supreme Court rejected a civil-liberties challenge to 
post-Sept. 11 law-enforcement spying, refusing to expedite hearing a 
dispute over the boundaries of a law that gave the government broader 
surveillance authority after the terrorist attacks.

The case from Maryland continues a line of Supreme Court cases clarifying 
when officers have probable cause and can apprehend someone without a 
warrant. In this case, the court will consider whether it was an 
unconstitutional stretch for the officer to link the front-seat passenger 
to drugs found in a back armrest, and then to arrest all three people in 
the car.

Twenty states had urged the court to hear the case, involving a 1999 
early-morning traffic stop in Baltimore County that yielded $763 in the 
glove compartment and five baggies of cocaine in an armrest in the backseat.

"Countless times each day, officers make traffic stops and uncover 
contraband in multipassenger situations. Police need the clarity of 
authority to know who may be arrested in such cases," Maryland Attorney 
General Joseph Curran argued in a court filing.

Joseph Jermaine Pringle, the front-seat passenger, was convicted of drug 
charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He later told police that the 
drugs were his and that he had planned to swap them for sex or money at a 
party.

An appeals court threw out Mr. Pringle's conviction on grounds that his 
arrest was unconstitutional and the confession was tainted.

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches or 
seizures. That means police almost always need a warrant to search 
someone's house without permission, but the Supreme Court has interpreted 
the protection more narrowly when it comes to automobiles and public 
transportation. (Maryland v. Pringle)

ACLU Challenged Surveillance Powers

In the domestic spying case, the American Civil Liberties Union and other 
organizations wanted the justices to consider when the government should be 
allowed to monitor someone's telephone conversations and e-mail, then use 
the information to prosecute them.

The Bush administration has argued that the surveillance, and a special 
court that oversees sensitive domestic-espionage tactics, are indispensable 
tools in the war on terror.

The ACLU used an unusual maneuver to get the case to the Supreme Court, 
filing an appeal on behalf of people who don't even know they are being 
monitored. The justices would have had to give special permission to allow 
it. They refused, without comment.

The action wasn't a ruling on the merits of the ACLU's challenge, and the 
issue is expected to return to the high court later.

The administration has aggressively defended its use of wiretaps approved 
by the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or "spy 
court," which deals with intelligence requests involving suspected spies, 
terrorists or foreign agents.

Issues that have inspired the court challenges include government spying, 
secret detentions, confidential deportation hearings, imprisonment of 
wartime prisoners without lawyers and access to suspected foreign 
terrorists held at undisclosed overseas locations.

Even the spy court had reservations about that aggressiveness. In May, the 
court ruled that the USA Patriot Act didn't justify the use of certain 
investigative techniques proposed by the administration. Attorney General 
John Ashcroft appealed to a review court, which had never met or issued a 
decision during the spy court's 25-year existence.

That review court sided with the administration and said government 
officials didn't have to limit their monitoring to foreign intelligence. 
That means law-enforcement officers can use the information to build cases 
for prosecution.

The review-court decision "opens the door to surveillance abuses that 
seriously threatened our democracy in the past," justices were told in the 
filing by the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 
the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab Community 
Center for Economic and Social Services.

To get a warrant from the spy court, the government must show that a 
suspect probably is a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power." Law 
enforcement must meet a higher standard -- probable cause that a crime was 
committed -- to get an ordinary criminal warrant for wiretapping or other 
electronic intrusion.

The administration didn't respond to the ACLU's appeal. Any of the nine 
justices could have demanded a response, but none did.

The spy court has approved thousands of warrants since it was established 
by Congress in 1978, and it only rarely turns down the government. In 
testimony to Congress earlier this month, Mr. Ashcroft said there were more 
than 1,000 applications in 2002 for warrants under the Federal Intelligence 
Surveillance Act.

Since the 2001 terror attacks, Mr. Ashcroft personally has approved more 
than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants, authorized by the FISA and 
expanded by the USA Patriot Act. That's triple the number of emergency 
warrants used in the FISA's previous 23 years. The warrants let authorities 
tap telephones and fax numbers and conduct physical searches for up to 72 
hours before they are subject to the spy court's review.

The case is one of two at the Supreme Court involving issues related to the 
terrorist attacks. The other challenges the government's holding of closed 
deportation hearings after the attacks.

Decision Stands In Discrimination Case

In other action Monday, the court let stand a lower court decision that 
ruled a gay employee can sue under federal discrimination laws for 
harassment over their sexual orientation. The question arose after a gay 
butler at MGM Grand Hotel LLC, a unit of MGM Mirage Inc. of Las Vegas, 
complained of sexual harassment after the hotel fired him. (MGM Grand Hotel 
v. Rene)

The Supreme Court also rejected an appeal over contested rules for 
competition for telephone and Internet services. The appeal had essentially 
become moot because the contested rules were being overhauled by the 
Federal Communications Commission, the Bush administration told the court. 
New rules were approved last month.

AT&T Corp., WorldCom Inc. and other companies appealed a ruling that forced 
federal regulators to reconsider how to allow telecommunications companies 
to compete against each other. (WorldCom Inc. v. United States Telecom 
Association)
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens