SEARCHES -- THE SUPREME COURT REVIEWS TWO FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES

It was a busy first week for the Supreme Court. Returning to a docket
peppered with search-and-seizure cases, the justices have a prime
opportunity to inject clarity into their Fourth Amendment analysis.

Two of the cases before the court last week were City of Indianapolis vs.
Edmond, which questions the constitutionality of having an anti-narcotics
dog sniff around the perimeter of a car stopped at a police roadblock; and
Ferguson vs. City of Charleston, which looks at the legality of a hospital
program that checked pregnant women for cocaine use and turned positive
tests over to the police for potential prosecution.

Recent jurisprudence in this area is all over the map, with the court
advancing arguments both protective and restrictive of the police.

In oral arguments before the court, several justices expressed concern
about the use of drug-sniffing dogs in Indianapolis but seemed to back off
that criticism when the search was put into the context of a general
license and registration check. The court has grappled with what
expectation of privacy a motorist enjoys, creating a series of seemingly
contradictory standards.

The Indianapolis case is an overly broad attempt to combat drugs.
Widespread, random searches without reason are untenable, however admirable
the law enforcement impetus is. The court should reject the city's argument.

The Charleston case is equally troubling, involving medical officials in
law enforcement. Although the tests were ostensibly to protect an unborn
fetus, which under South Carolina law is considered a person after 24
weeks, many women were checked after giving birth, nullifying any
protective purpose.

Doctors and nurses should not be turned into criminal investigators. Test
the women, and urge them to attend drug counseling. But turning hospitals
into police precincts will simply deter women from getting the medical help
that they and their unborn children so desperately need.