DECISION SHOWS RIGHTS AT STAKE IN WAR ON DRUGS

One of the major - and often unnoticed - casualties of the war on drugs is
the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional rights contained in that provision
have been subtly eroding for some time now in our nation's efforts to crack
down on drug use, which is why last week's Supreme Court ruling is worth
noting.

The Supreme Court ruled that a South Carolina drug testing program for
pregnant women violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

The South Carolina program was a cooperative effort between a public
hospital and police. Maternity patients at the hospital were secretly tested
for drug use, and the information turned over to police, who arrested at
least 30 women as part of the program.

The program in question was aimed at a real problem - trying to reduce the
number of "crack babies," born to mothers who were drug addicts. But good
intentions alone aren't enough to pass constitutional muster.

The court ruled that without a legal warrant or the patient's consent, such
testing violated the Constitution. This wasn't an issue of the public's
safety that would justify an exception to the rules, the majority said. It
was designed to find evidence of criminal conduct and punish it.

The court was entirely correct in its analysis. Such secret testing should
be unconstitutional.

Let's be clear here: There's no denying that drug use creates terrible
problems. Importing, making or selling drugs is a highly lucrative criminal
activity, and drug use ruins lives through a host of evils.

But in the nation's struggle to overcome that menace, we have ceded far too
much territory on personal rights. Look at the abuses generated by the asset
forfeiture laws. Property and money can be taken by law enforcement on the
mere suspicion of drug-related activity - without any conviction being
necessary. There's a built-in conflict of interest - law enforcement gets to
keep and use the assets it seizes - and the law often ends up trampling
property rights in the name of fighting drugs.

Nor is it that unusual for employers to require drug tests as a condition of
employment any more. Sure, it makes life easier for employers, who can weed
out potential problems beforehand. But it makes hash of the constitutional
concept of "probable cause": Anyone applying for a job is tested, regardless
of whether there's any suspicion of drug use. Applicants have to prove their
innocence, rather than having it presumed.

Yet America fears drugs so much that the quiet subversion of civil rights
that ensues goes almost unremarked.

But it's a devil's bargain. The nation needs to address its drug problems,
certainly. However, if in doing so we extinguish some of the rights that
make America what it is, we will suffer a loss far worse than any
destruction illegal drugs alone could cause.