WHAT'S THIS MAN'S SIGN? TRY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Texas lawyer Pat Barber has something he wants you to know: If police
ask to search your car, you don't have to let them.

In fact, Barber wants you to know this so much that he's erected a
billboard on land he owns that adjoins Interstate 20 near Colorado
City, Texas. It reads "Just say NO to Searches!" and has a phone
number where callers will receive a recorded message that describes a
citizen's constitutional right to refuse a search.

There is nothing revolutionary or extralegal about the statement. It's
an accurate representation of your Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable searches. If you're pulled over for speeding or some
other moving violation, police can't search your car unless you give
consent or they have probable cause that illegal activity's going on.

But the way Texas state officials have reacted, you'd think Barber's
billboard said: "Just say YES to blowing up the governor's residence,"
with a phone number for those who want to join the conspiracy.

Just four days after the sign went up, Barber was sent a letter from
the Texas Department of Transportation demanding it come down. The DOT
threatened Barber, a former county prosecutor, with fines of up to
$1,000 per day if he didn't remove the billboard, claiming it was in
technical violation of the state's Highway Beautification Act.

Jim Barber, Pat Barber's cousin and attorney, accuses the state of
selective enforcement: "There were nine or 10 signs on the highway
right-of-way which were illegal per se. DOT was aware of it and never
took enforcement action against them until Pat complained about being
singled out."

Pat Barber's sign is not on the public right-of-way but on his private
property.

To stop the compounding fines, Pat Barber sued the DOT, claiming it
was violating his First Amendment rights to express a political
viewpoint on his own land. In September 1998, state District Judge
Suzanne Covington of Austin issued an injunction against DOT. She
found that Barber was likely to prevail and allowed the sign to remain
standing at least until the summary judgment hearing, which is set for
October.

Actually, there's little doubt that Barber's suit will succeed. In
1994, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of people to post
political signs on their property.

The case involved a restrictive ordinance in Ladue, Mo., that banned
most residential signs in order to reduce "visual clutter." But the
court said there are unique qualities to political messages emanating
from one's personal property, that the signs are an inexpensive form
of communication and convey information on the messenger's identity,
enhancing the signs' persuasive value. It said Margaret Gilleo had a
right to post a "For Peace in the Gulf" sign in a window from her home.

Barber's sign may be bigger -- 8 by 16 feet -- but it's put there for
the same reason. It is intended to educate, inform and persuade.

Barber says his sign effort was initiated because "for the past year,
police agencies across Texas have stepped up what they call "consent'
searches of vehicles on our highways." And he's seen the result:
People have had their possessions strewn on the ground by police while
they search the car, "vacationing families with children standing in
the summer heat . . . while officers went through their suitcases. I
saw two gray-haired ladies standing in the cold last winter," Barber
recalls.

Unfortunately, police are not obliged to tell people about their
Fourth Amendment rights the way, for example, they must inform a
suspect of the right to remain silent. In the 1996 case of Ohio vs.
Robinette, the court ruled that a police officer could request a
consensual search without telling the driver that he was free to go.

"Nobody knows what their constitutional rights are. Nobody knows you
can refuse a search request and you're free to leave," Barber said.

His goal is to "create a fundamental debate about roadside searches.
Do they yield enough criminal cases to justify intrusions into glove
compartments, trunks and luggage of law-abiding travelers?" He clearly
thinks not and says the sign's posted phone number has been called by
hundreds of people, "the vast majority calling to thank me" for the
public service.

But not everyone is happy. Police don't like the idea that citizens
know and assert their rights. They enjoy the undercurrent of coercion
that exists during an encounter with the public.

Mitchell County Sheriff Pat Toombs told the Dallas Morning News that
his office "resented (Barber's billboard) at first," but added, "he
has a right to his opinion."

Though apparently not to state it too loudly. Barber's attorney says
Toombs was the person who first complained to DOT about the sign,
prompting the enforcement action.

Despite the government's best efforts, Pat Barber's message may soon
be common knowledge in Texas. In May, the American Drivers
Association, a group that claims to represent 86,000 member truck
drivers, announced plans to put up similar "Just say NO to Vehicle
Searches" billboards along I-20 from Louisiana to East Texas.

Barber is a heroic figure in my book. He brought the Bill of Rights to
a dusty interstate and put average citizens back in the driver's seat
when dealing with police.