POLICE GET ANNUAL 'DO'S, DON'T'S'

Supreme Court'S Latest Rulings Are Detailed For Departments

The Wyoming Highway Patrol troopers who pulled over a speeding car had
no idea a backseat passenger was carrying drugs in her purse. But they
ended up looking inside it anyway, a search now condoned by the
nation's highest court.

That ruling is part of an annual summer ritual in which police
departments across America are detailing for officers the Supreme
Court's latest "dos" and "don'ts" of their work--guidelines that
become part of the fabric of daily life.

The Wyoming troopers had noticed a hypodermic syringe in the driver's
shirt pocket, and he admitted having used it to take drugs. That
sparked a search of the whole car. This spring, the nation's highest
court said the purse search was legal even though police had no reason
to suspect the passenger of any crime.

In the court's recently ended 1998-1999 term, police won some and lost
some.

"The court defines the constitutional boundaries that have to be
respected whenever the police interact with citizens," said Steven
Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties
Union. "The court's role is to tel police when they have crossed a
line they cannot."

Steven McSpadden, general counsel of the National Association of
Police Organizations, added, "Police look to the court for clear-cut
rules" at the intersection of individual rights and societal safety.

Television and the movies have taught generations of Americans about
the court's most famous ruling on police procedure, a 1966 decision
called Miranda vs. Arizona that said police must warn criminal
suspects of their rights to remain silent and have a lawyer's help
before questioning them.

McSpadden said efforts are underway to familiarize law enforcement
officers with the court's relevant latest decisions. They include these:

- -If police have reason to believe a car's driver has committed a
crime, may they search the possessions of all passengers in that car?
Yes.

- -May police generally search motorists and their cars after ticketing
them for routine traffic violations? No.

- -Can police let TV camera crews and other news media accompany them
when they enter someone's home to conduct a search or make an arrest?
No.

- -Can police tell people loitering with known street gang members to
move on, and arrest them if they refuse? No.

- -May police, acting without court warrants, seize someone's car from a
public place if they believe it was used for a crime? Yes.

"What's at work here is that a court generally deferential to law
enforcement is not about to let states or communities give unbridled
discretion to individual officers," Shapiro said.

The most important law-enforcement victory came in the Wyoming
decision, one liberals criticized but McSpadden called "an example of
the court's sensitivity to the needs of everyday law
enforcement."

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against
unreasonable police searches and seizures, generally requires police
to obtain court warrants. But the Supreme Court since 1925 has carved
out numerous exceptions when police targets are in vehicles.

The most publicized law-enforcement setback came when the court struck
down a Chicago ordinance that allowed police to break up groups of
loiterers if one or more were recognized as street gang members, and
to arrest those who refused to move along.

In the three years it was enforced, the ordinance resulted in 45,000
arrests.

McSpadden said the law was "clearly overbroad because it swept in
innocent individuals who had no connection with gang activity."

"Our people tell us the ordinance was an effort by Chicago's elected
officials to pump up the statistics on the city's anti-gang efforts,"
he said.

Shapiro said the Chicago ordinance "simply went too far" and let some
police officers engage in "racial profiling"--treating someone as a
criminal suspect based on nothing more than skin color.

David Strauss, a University of Chicago law professor and
police-procedure expert, said the most recent Supreme Court decisions
are typical of the current court, which unlike courts led by late
Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger, had no fixed
criminal-justice agenda.

"The Warren court of the 1960's was intent on cleaning up what they
saw as police abuses, and the Burger court of the 1970's and 1980's
waged a campaign to make things easier for law enforcement," Strauss
said.

"This court is mildly sympathetic to the needs of law enforcement but
prepared to say crime-fighting efforts went too far."

[inset #1]

Guidelines for police

Each summer the Supreme Court issues guidelines for police interaction
with citizens. This set of constitutional boundaries is culled from
the court's decisions from the previous year. Here's a look at some of
this year's standards.

Situation |Yes|No
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Can police generally search motorists and their cars | |
after ticketing them for routine traffic violations? | | X
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
If police have reason to believe a car's driver has | |
committed a crime, may they search the possessions | X |
of all passengers in the car? | |
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Can police let TV camera crews and other news media | |
accompany them when they enter someone's home to | | X
conduct a search or make an arrest? | |
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Can police order people loitering with known street gang | |
members to move on, and arrest them if they refuse? | | X
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
May police, acting without court warrants, seize | |
someone's car from a public place if they believe it was | X |
used for a crime? | |
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Supreme Court AP

[inset #2]

Past Supreme Court rulings Associated Press

Some past Supreme Court rulings on police work:

- -Carroll vs. U.S., 1925: Law enforcement officers can search cars and
other vehicles without court warrants if they reasonably believe they
will find evidence of a crime.

- -Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966: Police who intend to question criminal
suspects in custody must first warn them of their rights to remain
silent and to have a lawyer present, and tell them a lawyer will be
appointed for them if they can't afford one.

- -Terry vs. Ohio, 1968: Police who don't have "probable cause" to
arrest someone but have a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal conduct
may stop and question that person. If an officer fears the person may
be armed, a frisk search is permitted.

- -Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, 1977: Motorists stopped for routine traffic
violations may be ordered by police to get out of their cars.

- -Pennsylvania vs. Muniz, 1990: Police may ask suspected drunken
drivers routine questions and videotape their answers without warning
them of their rights, and prosecutors may use evidence such as slurred
responses.