COURT UPHOLDS SEARCH OF PASSENGER'S BELONGINGS

A driver's consent to search a vehicle justified the warrantless search of
a passenger's belongings in the car, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court's 4-3 decision was the first time it has addressed the issue,
which the court noted in its decision has not been decided by the U.S.
Supreme Court either.

According to court records, Jennifer Matejka was one of several passengers
in a van that was stopped by a state trooper for a traffic violation in
1997 in Portage County.

The trooper obtained the driver's consent to search the van and ordered
everyone out while he conducted the search. Matejka left her jacket behind,
and the trooper eventually searched it, finding drug paraphernalia and
marijuana.

After her arrest, authorities searched Matejka and her belongings and found
more drug paraphernalia, marijuana and LSD.

Matejka was charged with two counts of misdemeanor drug possession.

She made a motion arguing the warrantless search violated her Fourth
Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said she
had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the van and never gave police
permission to search her jacket.

The circuit court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed the
lower court, concluding that the driver's consent to the search of the van
included Matejka's jacket.

The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday upholding that decision allows into
evidence the drugs and paraphernalia found during the search.

Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Nashold, who handled the case for the
state, said Tuesday's decision is a hybrid of other precedents established
by the U.S. and state Supreme Courts.

"This is a logical and reasonable application of those cases," Nashold said.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented. She wrote the majority decision
violates the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches
because there was no reason to believe the automobile contained evidence of
a crime.

"Employing an unprecedented and unconstitutional approach, the majority
improperly expands a driver's authority to consent to the search of a
passenger's personal property," Bradley wrote.

She was joined in the dissent by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and
Justice William Bablitch.

James Connell, Matejka's lawyer, said the decision further erodes
individual privacy rights.

"I think that most people would not consider that by accepting a ride in a
car, they would be giving up their right to privacy or that they would be
giving the driver of the car the right to consent to a search of their
property," he said.

Connell said he had not yet spoken to Matejka about appealing the case to
the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has not yet gone to trial on the drug charges.