Pubdate: 6 Apr 1999
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Section: Family
Author: Jan Crawford Greenburg

JUSTICES EXPAND CAR-SEARCH RULES

WASHINGTON -- In a ruling that reduces the privacy rights of automobile
passengers, the Supreme Court on Monday gave police officers authority to
search a passenger's personal belongings if they believe it could contain
evidence of wrongdoing.

The justices said officers can search such things as a passenger's purse or
briefcase inside a car without getting a warrant even if they have no
reason to believe the person is involved in criminal activity. Justice
Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in a 6-3 ruling, said the
government's interest in preserving evidence outweighs any intrusion upon
personal privacy.

"Effective law enforcement would be appreciably impaired without the
ability to search a passenger's personal belongings when there is reason to
believe contraband or evidence of criminal wrongdoing is hidden in the
car," the court said.

Three justices issued a spirited dissent, saying the ruling could lead to
serious intrusions upon privacy. For example, the rule apparently would
allow police to search the briefcase of a passenger in a taxicab if the
officers believed the taxi driver had a syringe somewhere in his vehicle,
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. He was joined by Justices David Souter and
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Criminal defense lawyers were critical of the ruling, calling it part of a
gradual erosion of privacy rights by a court that generally has been
sympathetic to police. Others said it represented the latest example of how
the war on drugs has compromised the privacy rights of all Americans.

"We understand the court's intention here: They want to enable police to do
their job and, when there's something to search for, they can look in every
item it could be in," said Kimball Hazelwood Gilmer, a lawyer at the
Rutherford Institute, a conservative civil rights organization that filed a
friend-of-the-court brief in the case. "But they failed to take into
account the other interest--the privacy interest."

The case came about in 1995, when a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer stopped
David Young for speeding and driving with a faulty brake light. The officer
noticed a syringe in Young's pocket, so he ordered him out of the car. Two
female passengers also were ordered out of the vehicle.

One of the passengers, Sandra Houghton, identified a purse on the back seat
as hers. When a police officer searched it, he discovered a syringe
containing methamphetamine. Houghton was convicted of possession of a
concealed substance, a felony. But the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed her
conviction, ruling that the warrantless search of her purse was illegal
under the 4th Amendment.

In reversing the state court, the Supreme Court noted that history and
previous cases justified giving police the authority to search passengers'
belongings. Police have long had the power to search automobiles they
believe contain evidence or contraband without first getting a warrant,
under the rationale that the automobile would be long gone by the time the
officer returned with one.

Subsequent cases have given the police authority to search the vehicle,
including the trunk and any containers that might contain the contraband or
evidence of wrongdoing they are looking for. That means police could search
Young's car for drugs after they saw the syringe in his pocket and heard
him admit he used it to take drugs.

Monday's ruling means police can search containers that don't necessarily
belong to the driver. A rule to the contrary, the court said, "would
dramatically reduce the ability to find and seize contraband and evidence
of crime." For instance, a driver could hide evidence in a passenger's
belongings, the court said.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to emphasize that the new rule
applies only to automobiles and to containers found within automobiles. He
emphasized, as Scalia himself noted in his majority opinion, that it did
not authorize police to search the passenger or the clothing worn by the
passenger.

Houghton was "disappointed in the ruling but also grateful we went this far
to fight for her rights," said her lawyer, Donna Domonkos, an appellate
counsel in the Wyoming Public Defender's office. The ruling will reinstate
Houghton's conviction but won't send her to jail because she already has
served her sentence, Domonkos said.

Also on Monday, the court ruled in another criminal law case that a
defendant has a right to remain silent during sentencing proceedings and
that a judge cannot draw an unfavorable inference from his or her silence. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Mike Gogulski