ON THE DOCKET

Debates About Unreasonable Search And Seizure Arrive Early In The New
Supreme Court Term.

Wasting little time with pleasantries, the Supreme Court returns Monday to
face an as-yet-undefined caseload in the midst of a political season that
could determine its own future.

In the first week alone, the court will hear two important Fourth Amendment
cases that will help elucidate the constitutional limits on law enforcement
officials. An Indianapolis case questions the legality of a police
roadblock that includes not only a registration, license and impairment
check but a drug-sniffing dog circling the car as well.

A Charleston, S.C., case challenges the practice of testing pregnant women
for cocaine and turning positive results over to the police for potential
prosecution.

It has been four decades since the Warren court forcefully assumed judicial
control of police procedures. There has been a distinct ideological shift
on the court since then, toward a more conservative, federalist
jurisprudence. Yet despite a series of rulings in recent years limiting
congressional authority over the states, the Rehnquist court shows no signs
of ceding the power of the judiciary in this area.

Last term, the justices struck down legislation aimed at circumventing the
landmark Miranda ruling. It was a gut check of sorts. Despite the
criticisms that some justices have expressed over the original Miranda
decision, the court signaled that it will not allow Congress to tamper with
what it believes to be the judiciary's constitutional authority.

Despite the profound impact that the court's rulings have on the nation,
the justices continue to work almost in silence. The court's proceedings
are not televised, and much of the country remains unfamiliar with its
powers. Yet the court is the final arbiter of the constitutional
protections that rule our society and form of government.

Pay attention. It's not easy to remain informed, but the court merits
greater scrutiny.

Send comments to letters@star-telegram.com