ONE POLICE SEARCH GOES TOO FAR FOR SUPREME COURT

At last, the justices stand up for the fourth amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, has
shown precious little regard for the Fourth Amendment. That's the one
protecting Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. It promises
citizens that they can live in their homes or travel in public without
fear of arbitrary intrusion from government agents.

In recent years, the nation's highest court has been dismantling that
constitutional guarantee bit by bit, giving law enforcement officers
greater and greater leeway to rummage through cars and search innocent
people on trains and buses without cause.

But now an Iowa police officer has gone too far even for this
conservative court. In a unanimous ruling released Tuesday, justices
said officers have no right to search a car without consent after
stopping the driver for a routine traffic violation.

The case arose after a police officer in a town near Des Moines
stopped a driver, Patrick Knowles, for doing 43 mph in a 25-mph zone.
The officer issued Knowles a citation for speeding. Then, without
warrant or suspicion, the officer began rooting around in Knowles'
car. He happened to find some marijuana and a pipe.

Iowa law allows such searches, but Knowles argued that the officer
violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court, thank
heavens, agreed.

Officers can search a vehicle if they have arrested the driver. The
Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that officers do not need a search warrant
in such cases if they have to disarm the suspect or preserve evidence
for trial. But a routine citation for speeding or some other traffic
violation is not an arrest.

Rehnquist wrote: "While the concern for officer safety in (a traffic
stop) may justify the 'minimal' additional intrusion of ordering a
driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify
the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type
search."

Knowles should not have had marijuana, it's true. But Tuesday's ruling
addresses a larger issue.

In their zeal to root out lawbreakers, some politicians and police
have found it expedient to ignore the Constitution. It's important to
protect and support law enforcement officers, but it's plainly wrong
to let those concerns supersede our civil liberties.

Police officers must show good cause before they search our homes, our
cars or our pockets. That's a fundamental right, guaranteed by the
Constitution.

Finally, the Supreme Court saw fit to defend it.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady