SUPREME COURT RULING ERODES PRIVACY RIGHTS

While the war on drugs is every American's concern, so, too, should
the means used to fight that war. Over the years, this has meant
balancing competing interests. The police have an interest in getting
rid of illegal drugs. Citizens have an interest in protecting
themselves from unreasonable searches - a right guaranteed by the
Fourth Amendment.

In a 6-3 ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court approved a police
officer's warrantless search that erodes this valued protection.

The facts are simple. Sandra Houghton was a passenger in a car
stopped by the Wyoming Highway Patrol. The trooper saw a syringe in
the driver's shirt pocket. Upon questioning, the driver admitted
using drugs.

Houghton posed no threat to the trooper, nor did the trooper have
reason to believe (probable cause) she was involved in a crime.
Nevertheless, the trooper searched her purse and discovered
methamphetamine.

The question is this: Should the sins of the driver also taint the
belongings of any and all passengers? Do we, as occasional or frequent
passengers, surrender normal privacy expectations by accepting a ride
from a relative, a friend or a stranger?

We do now, according to the Supreme Court. Previously, the court had
allowed more leeway for warrantless searches of drivers who, by
driving on public streets, had a reduced right of privacy. Passengers,
though, had a higher level of privacy.

Justice Antonin Scalia, the opinion's author, cited more effective law
enforcement as a reason for the decision. To allow otherwise, Scalia
contends, would allow contraband to be shipped in a passenger's purse,
bag, or container in order to avoid searches.

Yet, are criminals so clever? Bulging prisons would argue no. More
importantly, is law enforcement so helpless? Aren't skilled officers
routinely able to observe and to probe passengers for inconsistencies
or lies - the sorts of varied factors, based upon an officer's
experience, that lead to individualized, not collective, probable
cause? Federal and state courts have typically upheld warrantless
searches when officers are able to articulate any combination of
experience-based factors.

While Justice Scalia's intent was to strengthen law enforcement, it
was accomplished at a price - the erosion of privacy. The court, in
attempting to balance these interests, broke with well established
precedents distinguishing the reduced privacy rights of the driver
from those of a passenger. The result of this break is imbalance.