SEIZURE OF DRUG SUSPECT'S VEHICLE STIRS SUPREME COURT SKEPTICISM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, weighing the constitutionality of the drug
war, considered Tuesday whether police need a warrant before seizing and
searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal.

Texas and other states have laws permitting police to seize vehicles
suspected of having been used in the drug trade. Under these statutes, the
cars themselves are regarded as motorized criminals who can be "arrested"
and "searched" if the police have probable cause to believe they were used
in illegal activity.

The issue raised by the Florida case before the high court was whether
police violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches
and seizures when they failed to get a warrant before impounding and
examining the car of a man suspected of dealing drugs from the vehicle.

An attorney for Florida, Carolyn Snurkowski, urged the justices to
reinstate the drug-possession conviction of Tyvessel White, who was found
guilty based on the cocaine police found in an ashtray during their search
of his seized 1983 Toyota four-door automobile.

David Gauldin, a Florida assistant public defender representing White,
pressed the high court to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's decision to
throw out his client's conviction. The court said the police had failed to
get a required warrant before searching the car.

The justices are expected to render their decision in Florida vs. White by
July.

Presenting Florida's appeal to a skeptical U.S. Supreme Court, Snurkowski
argued that police have the same constitutional authority to seize and
examine an automobile suspected of being used in a crime as they do to stop
and search a person they suspect of having committed a violent act.

Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, pressing the Clinton
administration's support for Florida's position, added that police do not
need a warrant to seize and search a car suspected of having been used in a
drug deal and parked in a public place, such as an outdoor parking lot.

But Gauldin told an equally critical court that Florida's goal was not to
take White's car off the streets but to secure evidence against his client,
an effort that, he said, required a warrant.

Several justices pressed the three attorneys, warning Snurkowski and
Stewart that their view of police power could lead to law-enforcement
abuses and telling Gauldin that federal and state governments have
summarily seized and searched vehicles hauling illegal goods since the dawn
of the republic.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in questioning Snurkowski, said he was most
concerned about the "potential for abuse" by police officers who, under
Florida's theory, could spot a suspicious car but then wait years before
seizing and searching it in hope of catching a drug dealer. The car thus
becomes an "evidence repository" for patient police who want the car solely
as a mechanism for trapping criminals without first getting a warrant,
Scalia told Snurkowski, who said little to assuage the justice's concern.

"This instrumentality, the car, is the offender here," responded
Snurkowski, conceding that police can wait before acting. "The car cannot
wipe itself ... of crime."

Justice John Paul Stevens rejected Snurkowski's argument, saying a car
cannot be equated to a drug dealer. For example, a suspicious car is no
longer a "criminal" once it has been sold to someone who is not suspected
of dealing drugs, the justice said.

"The vehicle is not the criminal," Stevens added. "You can exonerate the
vehicle by selling it."

Stewart, of the Clinton administration, said police without a warrant may
seize a car from a public parking lot and search it if they have probable
cause to suspect the vehicle was used in a drug deal. But police would need
a warrant before taking a car from a suspect's closed garage because the
owner in that case would have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" akin to
that of a person sitting in his or her home, Stewart said.

Countering the two government lawyers, Gauldin echoed Scalia's concern
about police abuse in arguing that Florida was interested not in the car
but in securing incriminating evidence against his client. To prove his
point, the public defender said police waited at least 68 days from when
they allegedly saw White deal drugs from his car before seizing the Toyota
from a parking lot.

Gauldin said that Florida police often use the automobiles they seize not
as evidence at drug trials but in performing undercover work or to raise
money at civic auctions.

"It's a healthy incentive to enforce the law," Scalia said of the benefits
the police derive.

"Too healthy," Gauldin responded.