JUSTICES TAKE VEHICLE-SEARCH CASE

WASHINGTON -- A seemingly routine drug arrest in Tucson, Ariz., will
be reviewed by the Supreme Court to clarify the circumstances in
which police officers who do not have a warrant can search the
vehicle of a person who is under arrest.

The justices agreed on Monday to review the case of Rodney Joseph
Gant, whose arrest on Aug. 25, 1999, raised questions that have
sharply divided Arizona courts. State officials are asking the United
States Supreme Court to overturn a ruling last July by the Arizona
Supreme Court, which ruled that a search of Mr. Gant's car violated
the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures, and that the evidence must therefore be thrown out.

When two uniformed police officers went to a Tucson house after
getting a tip about drug activity there, Mr. Gant answered the door
and told the officers that the owner of the house was not there but
would return later.

The officers left and ran a record check on Mr. Gant, discovering
that his driver's license had been suspended and that there was an
arrest warrant against him for driving with a suspended license. That
evening, the officers returned to the house. While they were there,
Mr. Gant drove up and parked his car in the driveway.

What happened in those moments was crucial. As Mr. Gant got out of
his car, an officer called to him. Mr. Gant walked no more than 12
feet toward the officer, who immediately arrested and handcuffed him.
Very soon, the suspect was locked in the back of a patrol car under
police supervision. Two other suspects were arrested, handcuffed and
safely locked in other patrol cars at the time.

Then a search of Mr. Gant's car turned up a small plastic bag
containing cocaine. After Mr. Gant was convicted of possession of a
drug with intent to sell plus possession of drug paraphernalia, his
lawyers continued to try to have the evidence against him suppressed,
asserting that there had been no justification for the warrantless
search of his vehicle.

The Arizona high court agreed, holding that because Mr. Gant and the
other suspects had been cuffed and the scene was secure, "neither a
concern for officer safety nor the preservation of evidence justified
the warrantless search of Gant's car."

Courts at all levels have wrestled over the years with the
circumstances under which the police can search cars (and houses and
people) without warrants. Warrantless searches have often been upheld
in situations that demand quick decisions by police officers, either
to protect human life or preserve evidence or both. This fall, the
justices will hear arguments on how Mr. Gant's case fits into those
considerations.