NO-WARRANT SEARCHES ERODE SAFEGUARDS

Long before the events of 9/11, Americans concerned about privacy feared
the creeping infringements upon their constitutionally protected rights.

Most Americans tolerated new restrictions in the post-9/11 era to help
government agents apprehend terrorists before they could strike. Still, the
tradeoff is unsettling - especially in circumstances that aren't even
remotely connected to terrorism.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments that go to the heart of
constitutional protections from overzealous police searches of criminal
suspects and their cars. The case originated in Norfolk and involves a city
police officer and a convicted felon.

What could emerge is yet another bite carved from the Fourth Amendment
right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The high court's decision
is expected this summer.

The worst result is for the court to give police more leeway in conducting
searches of motorists on the basis of a hunch that a law has been broken.

In July 2001, Norfolk Police Officer Deion L. Nichols was following a
motorist, Marcus Thornton. Before the officer could pull him over, Thornton
exited his car.

Nichols questioned him. Thornton "appeared nervous" and "right away started
rambling," "licking his lips" and "sweating," according to court documents.
The officer searched Thornton and found marijuana and crack cocaine.

Nichols arrested Thornton and placed him in the police car. The officer
then searched Nichols' car - without his permission or a warrant - and
found a loaded 9 mm handgun. The find was significant because, as a
convicted felon, Thornton was not supposed to have firearms.

He was convicted of the gun and drug charges. Thornton then appealed the
gun conviction, contending the firearm evidence should have been suppressed
because of the nature of the search.

Appellate courts sided with the prosecution and Nichols.

It's unpopular to go to bat for criminals.

But there's a larger issue at stake.

After arresting Thornton, there was no way the suspect could reach anything
inside his car. The officer should have sought a warrant, though it's
tedious and time-consuming.

Why is this important?

Because many minorities are singled out for searches because of their race,
who they hang out with, or the neighborhoods they live in.

Because objective guidelines are supposed to be followed before law
enforcement officials search people, their possessions or their homes.

Because often, when officers' suspicions are wrong about people, we don't
hear about those encounters.

Rolling back Fourth Amendment protections will make it easier to catch
criminals. But it will also make America a little less free for everybody else.