COURT WON'T REVIEW ARREST WARRANTS

WASHINGTON -- When police broke down Desarie Overton's door, they had an
arrest warrant that said she was harboring drug dealers. A divided Supreme
Court refused Monday to consider invalidating the warrant.

Overton claims police had no reason to be at her home in the first place,
so anything they found could not be used against her.

Four justices explained Monday that they disagreed with the lower court
decision against Overton and would have reversed it based on existing
Supreme Court precedent. It takes the votes of four justices to agree to
hear a case, but Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David
Souter and Stephen Breyer said they would not vote to take the case because
the issue has already been decided.

"The warrant is clearly inadequate under well-established Supreme Court
case law," Breyer wrote for the group.

Overton had refused to let officers in her Toledo, Ohio, home in 1998, so
they kicked the door in and found her upstairs, along with some cocaine
rocks wrapped in a $20 bill.

A judge convicted Overton of drug possession and sentenced her to six
months in jail. The sentence has been on hold, pending the outcome of the case.

Overton said arrest warrants are signed by a city court clerk who does not
consider whether there is legal standing for a warrant and simply grants
what lawmen want.

"The record of this case reveals that the unconstitutional practice ... is
not the exception but the norm in the City of Toledo," her attorney,
Jeffrey M. Gamso, told the Supreme Court. "Substantial numbers of persons
in and around Toledo are, apparently, being arrested in violation of their
constitutional rights."

He said a detective did not say why they suspected that Overton, a
41-year-old mother of three, was allowing drug dealing in her home.

"The complaint is not bare-bones," Julia R. Bates, the county's prosecuting
attorney, told the court in urging justices to reject the case.

Bates said the lawmen detailed the place of the illegal activity, date and
type of drug.

An appeals court upheld Overton's conviction, and the Ohio Supreme Court
refused to take the case. Bates said the ruling in Overton's case was "not
the slightest bit remarkable."

"No startling rule of law was announced, no eye-popping doctrine was
enunciated, and no astonishing declaration was set forth," Bates said in
paperwork filed with the court.

The Supreme Court has maintained that officials must have probable cause
before authorizing warrants.

"One would think that if Toledo police officers were able to obtain arrest
warrants for the mere asking ... the constitutional questions that
(Overton) now presents would have been presented and resolved years ago,"
Bates said.

Overton had also complained that a city clerk, not a judge, signed the
arrest warrant.

One judge sided with her when the case went to a county appeals court.
Judge James R. Sherck said the officer who sought the warrant did not say
if he observed illegal activity or if someone told him of it. He said the
clerk had no way to independently evaluate whether a warrant was proper.

The case is Overton v. Ohio, 00-9769.