JUSTICES NEED TO REIN IN A FEW COPS

The 3 1/2 Amendment should be restored to the Fourth, to protect us from
illegal searches and seizures

Did you hear the one about the soccer mom in Texas who went to jail for not
buckling her seat belt? Gail Atwater's story is no joke, even though law
enforcement this bizarre cries for a punch line.

Three years ago she was shuttling her two kids home from soccer practice --
cruising at 15 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood -- when a
suburban cop pulled her over. Naturally, he meant well.

Atwater forgot to fasten up herself and her children. So to make an
example, the officer cuffed Atwater with her hands behind her back and
locked her in a cell. All this was over an offense that carried a maximum
fine of $50.

Atwater has made a federal case of it. So far she's convinced an appeals
court that the police violated the Fourth Amendment. Now it's become one of
five disputes that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing this term on possible
illegal searches and seizures by the government.

We hope the justices will continue to take tough looks at questionable
intrusions into your right to be left alone. That desire hardly should be
controversial. But consider this: There are plenty of reasons to argue that
courts don't give the Fourth Amendment the full status it deserves. Legal
scholars deride the provision's protections against unreasonable searches
and seizures as the ``3 1/2 Amendment.'' Judges too predictably dismiss
citizen complaints.

Now optimism exists that the high court may be correcting this misguided
approach. The justices have heard seven cases on the subject in the past
two sessions -- an amazing number, given their tight docket. And law
enforcement has been on the losing side of some surprising decisions.

This year's lineup is unusual -- and may herald more beefed-up oversight.
Past cases involved criminal suspects trying to wiggle out of felony
convictions. These unsympathetic characters are difficult to rally around.
But, when they lose, their cases contribute to a bad atmosphere that the
rest of us have to deal with when we encounter the police. Like the soccer
mom locked up because the officer deemed it acceptable to teach her a harsh
lesson for not wearing a seat belt.

Another Supreme Court case this term involves law-abiding citizens upset
about being held at police roadblocks. In Indianapolis, officers like to
set up big dragnets to ferret out drugs. Keeping narcotics off the streets
is a great goal. It's another case of good intentions.

But to carry it out the police have to detain everyone driving by a
checkpoint. Motorists don't get to leave until the officers are convinced
the car isn't loaded with drugs. Usually, this kind of warrantless search
requires at least a suspicion that the individual was committing a crime.

The Supreme Court heard the case last month. Justice Antonin Scalia pounced
on the government lawyer who suggested court precedents justified nearly
any roadblocks. That would be "sorta scary," he noted. We second that, and
we applaud the high court's efforts to give the country the full Fourth
Amendment.