POT BUST SPURS COURT CASE

Misdemeanor Drug Case Leads To Search-And-Seizure Debate

SULLIVAN -- The police knew what Charles McArthur would do if he got the
chance to enter his trailer alone. McArthur knew, too. He even admits it.

He would destroy any evidence of marijuana.

So police decided McArthur wasn't about to enter that trailer alone. They
stayed with him outside the trailer or followed him in for the two hours it
took to obtain a search warrant. Then they conducted a search, found pot
and arrested him.

Now that decision -- made three years ago in a little town over a
misdemeanor drug offense -- will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court on
Wednesday.

The court's ruling will help set the boundary between an individual's right
to come and go in his own home and the police's power to preserve evidence
of a crime.

"I think it was definitely wrong to tell somebody they can't go back in
their house unless the police is with them," McArthur, 30, said last week.
"I think they need to have a clearer law on what they can and can't do."

So far, McArthur, an employee at a paper manufacturing plant, has won every
step of the way in battling charges of possessing drug paraphernalia and
less than 2.5 grams of cannabis.

A trial judge threw out the evidence, a state appellate court agreed and
the Illinois Supreme Court let the rulings stand without holding hearings.

Assistant Police Chief John Love says he did all he could in a tightwire
act to protect McArthur's rights and simultaneously preserve evidence.

"I'd handle it again the same way," Love said. "I chose to do it the right
way, the best way for everybody -- and the fairest way to him."

The case began April 2, 1997, when McArthur's estranged wife had police
wait outside their trailer as she packed and moved out. When she left, she
told police her husband had pot under a couch.

Love then knocked on the trailer door and confronted McArthur. McArthur,
while standing outside, denied the charge and declined to allow a search.

Love had an officer take the wife to help get a warrant and did not let
McArthur enter the trailer unless accompanied by police.

"My guys went out of their way to respect Mr. McArthur's rights. That's the
least restrictive thing they could have done and performed their jobs,"
said Moultrie County State's Attorney Tim Willis. "They could have kicked
the door down. They didn't do that."

McArthur, who has since testified that he would have destroyed the
evidence, had the option of staying outside. In that case, police never
would have gone in without a warrant, the prosecutor said. McArthur also
was free to leave at any time.

This case is a misdemeanor drug offense, but the next one could involve
murder, Willis said. "If the Supreme Court rules against us generally ...
people are going to get away with crimes," he said.

McArthur no longer lives in the trailer park in this east-central Illinois
town of 4,400. Some residents of the park contend police should never have
entered his trailer without a warrant.

"It's private property; we live here," said Terri Ringo, who watched the
incident three years ago.

Factory worker Mike Makos said police had no right to enter McArthur's
trailer over something as minor as marijuana possession. But if the offense
were more serious, he said, then more aggressive action by police would be
understandable.

"If people were selling drugs here, that's another thing," he said. "Then
come and take the whole trailer."

In principle, Makos makes the same argument that McArthur's attorney said
she will present to the Supreme Court.

"Our point is there are some crimes so small the government's interests in
prosecuting the crimes are not going to outweigh the protection of the
individual's Fourth Amendment rights," said Deanne Fortna Jones. "The real
question is how much is society going to suffer if he isn't going to be
prosecuted for this small amount of marijuana."

Illinois Solicitor General Joel Bertocchi said Jones has not made that
narrow argument in lower court appearances and the change may reflect
concern about her chances of winning.

He indicated his response would be that McArthur's alleged crimes, while
misdemeanors, are "serious enough." If the maximum sentences ran
consecutively, McArthur could spend more than a year in jail.

For his part, McArthur just wants to put the case behind him.

"I hate this whole thing. It's just been a giant headache for me for three
years," McArthur said. "It was a marijuana charge. I'm not proud of that."

On the Net: State court ruling: http://www.courts.net and click on Illinois
to find Illinois v. McArthur, 99-1132.