LAW - REASONABLE SEARCH

In agreeing to hear a drug-related Illinois case, the U.S. Supreme Court
has positioned itself to correct an egregious interpretation of the
protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The dispute began in 1997 when a woman, accompanied by police to retrieve
her belongings, told officers that her husband had marijuana under the
couch. The man denied it but refused to give permission for a search.

Officers made him stay outside, except when an officer accompanied him,
until a search warrant arrived. Then, they entered the house and found
marijuana.

The man conceded he would have destroyed the evidence if allowed back
inside but asked that it be suppressed anyway. Two lower courts complied,
saying he shouldn't have been kept outside.

But the Fourth Amendment was intended to keep the state from nosing around
in a suspect's personal effects without reason. It does not prevent
reasonable steps to preserve evidence. The man waived his right to keep the
officer outside when he accepted the conditions.

No one has a right to destroy evidence.