STATE SUPREME COURT OKS 'HOME INVASION'

Californias' right to be secure in their homes was reduced last week
in a close,4-3 decision by the state Supreme Court.

Here are the facts the justices weighed: In Antioch in 1985, Gayla
Loza was on probation and the conditions of her probation allowed
unannounced searches of her home. She was living in the same house as
James Mofield. After police arrested Mr. Mofield, "who was carrying a
long knife and substances that appeared to be drugs," outside the
home, reported The Associated Press, the police then searched his
house - but without a warrant.

In the house, they allegedly discovered drugs in the possession of two
other people, Cheryl Woods and William Benson. Both were prosecuted on
drug charges. Because Ms. Loza was on probation, police said, they
didn't need a warrant.

Lower courts said the police needed a warrant. But the state Supreme
Court disagreed, saying no warrant was needed because the conditions
of Ms. Loza's probation allowed the police to search her house - all
of it, not just the part she lived in.

"A majority of this court set the history of personal liberties back
more than 200 years," Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her
dissent. That seems clear to us. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures...." The California Constitution reiterates that right verbatim.

"It seems to be a dangerous precedent," Professor Gilbert Geis,
professor emeritus of criminology at the University of California,
Irvine, told us. "It's an extension of police power. How would the
justices like it if their homes were invaded? They wouldn't like it
very much."

A concurring objection came from Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional
law professor at the University of Southern California, who told us,
"it is a substantial expansion of the power of the police to do
warrantless searches. The California Supreme Court is opening the door
to search those who are not on probation because they're in the house
of someone who is on probation. Here the police are admitting they're
using the search of one person to get at another person."

Mr. Geis explained how this can affect ordinary citizens. He said, "If
you're living with someone who's on probation and you don't know that,
you unknowingly take on the burden of being invaded."

You may not even know if a roommate or relative living with you is on
probation but the ruling makes your effects equally subject to an
instant, warrantless search. An for someone who is known to be on
probation, his relatives and friends will be reluctant to help him out
in time of need by providing a room, possibly casting that person back
into the arms of criminal associates.

Defense lawyer L. Richard Braucher is appealing the decision to the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Another action can be taken by Gov. Gray Dais, who should make sure
his appointments to the California Supreme Court have a greater
concern for the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Court Decision And The Dissent Are On The Internet (Requires The
Free Adobe Acrobat Reader):
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S068741.PDF)