STATE COURT BACKS POLICE ON SEARCHES

Rights: Justices Split Sharply In 4-3 Ruling Allowing Car Inspections For
License, Registration.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Police in California may search cars if a driver
fails to produce a license or registration regardless of whether the
officer has a warrant, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court, in a 4-3 vote, sided in favor of law enforcement
despite sharply worded dissents declaring that such searches violate
the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Joyce Kennard, one of the dissenters, suggested the ruling may
have been motivated by security fears stemming from the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks.

"As this opinion is being written, our nation is undergoing a painful
recovery from the devastating physical and psychological effects of
that day," Kennard wrote. She said the ruling "does nothing to enhance
our security and does much to erode our 4th Amendment rights."

California courts previously have allowed police making routine
traffic stops to search for licenses and registrations in glove
compartments and under visors. The Supreme Court's decision Thursday
approves for the first time searches under the seats of cars and
elsewhere when there is no reason to believe a crime has been
committed, lawyers in the case said.

Other courts have also given police more freedom in dealing with
motorists. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month reaffirmed that
police have extensive leeway in determining when to stop motorists and
that they may rely on innocent-looking actions as grounds for their
suspicions.

The state high court's majority, in an opinion written by Chief
Justice Ronald M. George, reasoned that police can look for documents
in a vehicle to determine the identity of the driver and the owner of
the vehicle. The decision upheld two police searches in Orange and
Solano counties in which drugs were found under car seats and the
drivers were prosecuted for possession.

"Limited warrantless searches for required registration and
identification documentation are permissible," George wrote, when the
officers look for documents "in an area where such documents
reasonably may be be expected to be found."

George contended that allowing such searches would be less intrusive
than arresting a motorist for driving without a license. He also noted
that it would not be permissible to search a car trunk unless the
officer had reason to believe the documentation was in there.

Voting with George were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming W. Chin and
Justice Carlos R. Moreno, whom Gov. Gray Davis recently appointed to
fill a vacancy left by the death of Justice Stanley Mosk in June. Mosk
frequently sided with defendants in police search cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in a case involving the kind of
circumstances before the California court, although some high courts
in other states have upheld searches for vehicle registration.

The three dissenting justices sharply accused the majority of
violating the U.S. Constitution by creating a "blanket" exception to
warrant requirements.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the majority erred in saying that
the space beneath a driver's seat is a reasonable place to keep
vehicle registration. She also noted that driver's licenses are not
usually kept under a car's seat and contended the Constitution
prohibits car searches for licenses.

"Nothing--not the Constitution, nor any statute nor the cases cited by
the majority--authorizes police to conduct a warrantless vehicle
search in an attempt to discover the license of a driver who asserts
he or she does not have it in the car," Werdegar wrote.

If a driver fails to produce a license, the officer can run the
driver's name on a computer, ask the driver to submit a thumbprint,
accept another form of identification or arrest the driver, she said.

"By what logic," she asked, "would a police officer believe that
searching a vehicle for a person's driver's license would be fruitful
when the driver has just informed the officer that he does not have a
license in possession?"

Kennard, joined by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, discussed "the
horrendous events of Sept. 11" and asked whether anyone would ever be
able to forget them.

Part of the recovery has been to create more security for citizens but
"an equally important part" should be a "rededication to the
principles upon which our nation was founded," Kennard wrote.

She predicted the ruling "may well result in limitless searches
throughout a vehicle whenever a driver cannot produce the requisite
documentation."

The court reached its decision in a single ruling on two similar
cases. One of them stemmed from a traffic stop of Randall Ray Hinger,
40, who was making unsafe lane changes, in Orange County in August
1997. Hinger told the officer that he did not have his driver's
license with him and had no car registration.

The officer asked Hinger whether he could search the car, and Hinger
said no. The officer replied that he would search the car anyway to
look for identification and registration. Hinger then mentioned that
he might have a wallet in the car.

The officer lifted papers in the glove box and then walked around near
the driver's seat and looked under it. He then walked to the
passenger's seat and looked under it. He found a wallet, and inside
it, a plastic bag containing methamphetamine.

Hinger pleaded guilty to possession after a trial court refused to
throw out the evidence on the grounds the search was illegal. A Court
of Appeal later upheld that decision.

In the second case, Arturo D., who was 16, was stopped in August 1998
in Solano County for speeding. Arturo gave the officer his name, date
of birth and an address but admitted that he had no driver's license.
He also said the truck was not his and he had no registration for it.

The officer felt under the driver's seat for documentation. When he
couldn't feel anything, he went behind the driver's seat, bent down
and peered under under it. He found a glass smoking pipe and a white
vial that contained methamphetamine.

A trial judge approved the search, but a Court of Appeal in Orange
County overturned the decision.

Amanda F. Doerrer, the lawyer who represented Hinger, said she was "in
a little shock with the decision" and was strongly considering asking
the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it.

"It significantly reduces a person's expectation of privacy when they
are in an automobile," she said.

No appellate court has approved such searches for identification
unless the officer suspected contraband was in the car or feared for
his safety, she said. Neither officer in the two cases had such concerns.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Alana Butler said the ruling "will give officers
more guidance about what they can and cannot do."

"It really gives officers room to be able to look at the totality of
the circumstances and to be able to use their good judgment," she
said. "At the same time, they can't go on a pretext search and rummage
in a place where these things might not reasonably be found."

Deputy Atty. Gen. Jeffrey M. Laurence said he does not believe the
terrorist attacks directly shaped the court's decision in People vs.
Arturo D., S085213, and People vs. Hinger, S085218.

"Sept. 11 reflects the need for officers to confirm the identity of
drivers, but I don't think it impacted the outcome" of the cases,
Laurence said.