JUDGMENT ON POLICE SEARCHES

The U.S. Supreme Court's reasonable ruling on police searches should allow
law enforcement officers to use their common sense instead of a stopwatch.

The case involved a suspected drug dealer, LaShawn Banks. Police in Las
Vegas, armed with a search warrant, knocked on his apartment door. When he
didn't answer in 20 seconds, they broke it down.

The issue before the court was whether the time interval was reasonable.
Banks' attorney convinced a federal appeals court that 20 seconds was such
a short period of time that it violated Banks' constitutional protection
against unreasonable search.

But the attorneys for the police argued that there is a substantial
difference between the pursuit of a suspected drug dealer - who can dispose
of evidence in a flash - and the pursuit of suspects in other types of crimes.

The high court agreed unanimously. Writing the decision, Justice David
Souter said that the reasonableness much depends on the circumstances in
each particular case, and that the police were right to assume that the
longer they waited at the door, the more opportunity Banks would have to
dispose of the drugs.

While the case was a victory for law enforcers, it included a caveat.
Attorneys for the police department argued that the fact that the officers
caused property damage when they broke down the door was irrelevant to the
issue of whether the entry was reasonable. Souter disagreed, saying that
all the circumstances surrounding the case could be taken into consideration.

The protections against unreasonable searches protect all citizens - the
innocent as well as the guilty. Courts will always need to safeguard those
protections against the intrusion of overly eager police.

Yet in this case, the court was right to acknowledge that different tactics
are warranted depending on the nature of the suspected crime. A suspect who
could wreck months of police work with one flush of a toilet should be
allowed a very short leash.