RULING ALLOWS COPS TO SEIZE CARS

WASHINGTON (AP) Police do not need a warrant to seize someone's car
from a public place under laws requiring forfeiture of property linked
to crime, the Supreme Court said today.

The 7-2 ruling reinstated a Florida man's drug conviction based on the
crack cocaine police found in his car after seizing it without a
warrant. Police said the man's car was subject to forfeiture because
it had been used to deliver drugs several months earlier.

The case involves seizures made under a Florida law that allows
forfeiture of property used in committing drug crimes. A similar federal law
provides for forfeiture of vehicles used in transporting illegal drugs.

The ruling reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision that said the
cocaine should not have been used as evidence against Tyvessel
Tyvorus White because police did not get a warrant before seizing his
car.

The state court based its ruling on the Constitution's Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court today that the seizure of
the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

"Although ... the police lacked probable cause to believe that ...
(White's) car contained contraband ... they certainly had probable
cause to believe that the vehicle itself was contraband under Florida
law," Thomas said.

White was arrested at work in Bay County, Fla., in 1993 on unrelated
charges. After he was taken into custody, police obtained the keys to
his car and took it from his workplace parking lot.

The seizure was based on the officers' belief that White's car had
been used several months earlier to deliver illegal drugs. Police
searched White's car and found two pieces of crack cocaine in the
ashtray.

White was charged with possessing an illegal drug, and a state judge
allowed the cocaine to be used as evidence. White was convicted and a
state appeals court upheld the conviction.

However, the Florida Supreme Court threw out White's conviction,
saying the cocaine should not have been used as evidence because
police did not get a warrant before seizing the car.

Getting a warrant would have created no "undue burden" for the police
once

White was arrested and his car remained at his workplace, the Florida
court said.

Justice Department lawyers supported the state's appeal to the Supreme
Court, saying different standards apply to seizures of property as
opposed to searches conducted without a warrant.

The seizure of White's car without a warrant was valid so long as
police had reason to believe it was used in a drug crime, government
lawyers said. Once a car is seized, it can be searched without a
warrant, they added.

The Supreme Court ruled for the state.

Because the police seized the car from a public place the parking
lot of White's employer the seizure did not invade White's privacy, Thomas
said.

His opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy,
David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Writing
for the two, Stevens noted that the alleged use of the car to deliver
drugs occurred more than two months before police seized the vehicle.

Stevens said it appeared the officers simply wanted to avoid the
"hassle" of getting a warrant. He added, "I would not permit bare
convenience to overcome our established preference for the warrant process."

The case is Florida vs. White, 98-223.