JUSTICES LIMIT POLICE 'SQUEEZE' SEARCHES OF BAGS

WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court limited the power of police to search
travelers for drugs Monday, ruling that officers may not feel or
squeeze carry-on bags to detect narcotics.

Passengers consider their carry-on bags personal and private, the
justices said, even when they are put into an overhead bin. They do
not expect police to take advantage of the opportunity to feel the
bags in search of drugs, they said.

The 7-2 decision reversed the drug conviction of a California man who
was arrested aboard a Greyhound bus when it stopped near a border
checkpoint in Texas. A federal border patrol agent, having checked the
immigration status of the passengers, then walked the aisle and
squeezed the bags overhead.

In a green canvas bag, the agent felt a "brick-like" object. Inside,
he found a block of methamphetamine wrapped in tape.

The bag belonged to passenger Steven D. Bond. He was convicted of
conspiracy to distribute the drug and sentenced to 57 months in prison.

Clinton administration lawyers said that the search was entirely
legal.

But conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, speaking for the
high court, disagreed and said that passengers do not give up the
privacy of their personal items when they board a public carrier.

The 4th Amendment protects "the right of people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches,"
noted Rehnquist, and "a traveler's personal luggage is clearly an
'effect' protected by the amendment," he said.

The decision (Bond vs. United States, 98-9349) clearly covers
passengers and their carry-on bags on buses, trains and other common
carriers but not necessarily on airplanes.

Because of security concerns, airline passengers are said to have a
lesser expectation of privacy. Since the wave of hijackings in the
1970s, searches of passengers and their belongings have become
standard. In the past, judges have rejected constitutional challenges
to these searches.

Monday's ruling will not alter the status of those security
searches.

The decision marks the second time in two months that the high court
has overturned a conviction on 4th Amendment grounds.

Last month, the justices unanimously threw out gun-carrying charges
against a Miami teenager who was arrested after police received an
anonymous tip. In that case, the court said that officers need
reliable and credible information before they stop and frisk a pedestrian.

Both decisions came as something of a surprise. Over the last decade,
the justices have given police broad power to conduct criminal
searches, especially when drugs are involved.

For example, the court in 1989 upheld the use of low-flying
helicopters to spot marijuana plants growing in the backyards of
private homes. Because the plants could be seen from the air,
homeowners had no reasonable expectation of privacy, the court said
then.

On Monday, however, the chief justice drew a distinction between
touching and seeing. "Physically invasive inspection is simply more
intrusive than purely visual inspection," he said.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton appointee, complained in dissent
that the ruling will deter law enforcement officers from searching for
drugs in "publicly exposed bags."

If a passenger has something to hide, he should "pack the contents in
a suitcase with hard sides," Breyer advised. Justice Antonin Scalia
joined his dissent.

Meanwhile, in other actions, the court:

* Shielded the railroads from being sued for accidents at grade
crossings, which are blamed on inadequate warning signals (Norfolk
Southern vs. Shanklin, 9-312).

Since 1973, federal funds have been used to install various warnings
at rail crossings. By a 7-2 vote, the justices said that this federal
authority shields railroads from liability.

* Refused to hear a challenge to a Los Angeles County school
district's refusal to post the Ten Commandments at a baseball field
(DiLoreto vs. Board of Education of Downey Unified School District,
99-1345).

When baseball boosters at Downey High School sought to raise money by
putting ads on the outfield wall, Edward DiLoreto offered to pay $400
for an ad including the Ten Commandments. The school refused, and he
sued. But two courts in California ruled that school officials are
free to accept only ads that they believe are appropriate.

* Agreed to decide whether state employees with disabilities are
protected by federal anti-discrimination law. This new test of states
rights (University of Alabama vs. Garrett, 99-1240) will be heard in
the fall.