WATCH WHAT YOU CARRY

Passengers in a car don't have as many privacy rights as they did before
April 5, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-to-3 ruling in Wyoming
v. Houghton. In that case, police stopped a car for speeding. The driver,
who had a hypodermic needle sticking out of his shirt pocket, admitted using
it to administer illegal drugs. This gave police the right to search the
car. Then they also searched the purse of the car's passenger - without
having legally acceptable probable cause to do so. The purse turned out to
contain methamphetamine and
drug paraphernalia. The passenger's felony conviction was later overturned
by the Wyoming Supreme Court on the grounds that the police had invaded her
privacy by searching the purse.

This decision was overturned by the April 5 ruling: In the majority were
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony
Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia (who wrote the main opinion)
and Clarence Thomas; the dissent, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, was
joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

It has been a settled constitutional rule that a driver does not have the
full panoply of privacy rights when police search the car for items that
might be linked to his or her suspected criminal activity.

However, what about passengers? When it came to police searches of
individuals and their belongings, some observers wanted to maintain what has
seemed to be a clear distinction between drivers, with highly restricted
rights of privacy, and passengers, with much more complete rights. But the
majority decision in Wyoming v. Houghton makes a somewhat different
distinction. In the absence of specific probable cause regarding an
individual passenger, he or she may not be searched - e.g., by being patted
down, having pockets frisked, etc. But his or her belongings - e.g., purse,
closed package, etc. - may be searched.

Police and prosecutors are generally pleased with this ruling, which expands
their ability to uncover illegal drugs, stolen goods and other contraband.
However, defense lawyers and civil libertarians are generally opposed,
arguing that passengers' privacy rights are being unwisely restricted.

Rulings that excessively restrict rights of privacy make us uncomfortable,
but so do principles of constitutional interpretation that unduly hamper the
ability of law enforcement officials to perform the vital
task of uncovering criminal activity. Both maintaining privacy rights and
combating crime are essential methods of protecting individuals and the
public interest. The trick is reaching an appropriate balance. If the
approach taken in Wyoming v. Houghton works reasonably well, as we think it
will, then fine. If that approach doesn't work out in a satisfactory fashion
- - which is possible, although not probable - then the Supreme Court is sure
to return to the issue.