SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE LATITUDE OF POLICE TO SEARCH PATRONS OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON -- With the nation on high security alert, the Supreme Court
agreed to determine how much latitude police have to search passengers for
weapons and drugs on public transportation.

The high court agreed to review a U.S. appeals-court ruling that the search
of two men on a bus was illegal because, among other reasons, they hadn't
been told that they weren't required to cooperate.

Without directly mentioning the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush
administration had urged the high court to reverse the ruling. Citing the
importance of efforts to seize illegal drugs and weapons, U.S. Solicitor
General Theodore Olson said: "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."

On Feb. 4, 1999, a three-member drug-interdiction team from the
Tallahassee, Fla., police department boarded a bus that had stopped there
en route from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Detroit. With the driver's
permission, the officers boarded the bus and began interviewing passengers
and asking if they could search their luggage. The police asked two men,
Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown Jr., if they could search a bag and
then pat down their clothing.

The search of the men's baggy clothing revealed that both were hiding
powder cocaine, and they were arrested. Both men were convicted on drug
charges. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in
Atlanta, found that the incident had violated the men's constitutional
right barring unreasonable search and seizure. The appeals court said the
men hadn't been informed of their right to refuse to cooperate and didn't
feel free to leave while the search of the bus was in progress in the
station. (U.S. vs. Drayton and Brown)

In a separate action, the high court agreed to review a case involving
whether citizens of British Virgin Islands, Bermuda or other British
overseas territories may bring legal disputes involving American companies
in U.S. courts.

The case involves a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, in New York, which dismissed a lawsuit by Chase Manhattan Bank.
The unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. had sued a British Virgin Islands
company that defaulted on a $119 million debt issue for which Chase was the
indenture agent. The appeals court ruled that a U.S. court in New York City
didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.

A U.S. law gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain civil actions
between U.S. citizens "and citizens or subjects of a foreign state." But
the New York appeals court argued that for certain technical reasons
corporations organized in British overseas territories aren't "subjects of
a foreign state."

Lawyers for both the British government, arguing that the decision could
involve billions of dollars of commerce, and the Bush administration urged
the high court to reverse the appeals-court ruling. The United Kingdom's
overseas territories include Bermuda, the Falkland Islands and the Cayman
Islands, the fifth-largest financial center in the world. (Chase Manhattan
vs. Traffic Steam)