HIGH COURT OPENS; DOCKET, ELECTION SHARE SPOTLIGHT

WASHINGTON -- Difficult questions about Americans' constitutional
protection against unreasonable searches -- while in their homes, cars and
even in hospital beds -- lead the Supreme Court's agenda as the justices
begin their 2000-2001 term today.

Some observers, however, say the most important day for the nation's
highest court will be Election Day. The next president will choose the next
members of a court that has been divided 5-4 on some of the nation's most
explosive issues.

The term that ended in June was a blockbuster. The justices upheld the
Miranda warnings police must give before questioning criminal suspects, let
the Boy Scouts ban homosexual troop leaders and struck down a state's law
banning "partial-birth" abortion.

They also banned group prayers at public high school football games and
prevented rape victims from suing their attackers in federal courts.

The court last week cleared its plate of the massive Microsoft antitrust
dispute by sending it to a federal appeals court, thus delaying a final
ruling perhaps for years.

The 47 cases granted review for the new term -- with about two dozen more
to be added in coming months -- lack the political punch of last year's
cases but will touch the lives of many ordinary Americans.

"It's already looming as a big year for the Fourth Amendment," which
protects Americans against unreasonable searches and arrests, said Steven
Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union.

A case that could affect the nation's 185 million licensed drivers asks
whether police can arrest people for traffic violations punishable by a fine.

A Texas woman, whose lawyers call her a "typical motorist," says police
went too far when they arrested, handcuffed and jailed her because she and
her children were not wearing seat belts in the family pickup.

Other cases illustrate "the pressure that the war on drugs has exerted on
the Fourth Amendment in particular and the Constitution in general,"
Shapiro said.

The justices will decide whether police can set up traffic checkpoints and
stop motorists in hopes of catching people who sell or use illegal drugs.

Another war-on-drugs case asks whether public hospitals can test pregnant
patients for drug use and tell police who tested positive. A South Carolina
hospital tested patients' urine without a court warrant and, if the result
was positive, women were arrested for endangering the fetus.

A case that was among a dozen granted review last week, when the justices
got a head start on their new term, asks whether police need a search
warrant to use a device to detect heat coming from someone's home.

An Oregon man was charged with growing marijuana after police said a
heat-detecting device showed an unusual amount of heat coming from the roof
over his garage.

Another marijuana-search case involves an Illinois man who was prevented by
police from going inside his home until the officers could get a warrant to
search for the drug.

The Clean Air Act dispute could yield an important ruling on environmental
protection that also might limit other federal agencies' authority to write
rules to implement laws passed by Congress.

Industry groups want the Environmental Protection Agency to consider costs,
in addition to health benefits, in setting federal air-quality standards.
The case began as a dispute over the EPA's 1997 standards for reducing smog
and soot.