SUPREME COURT LIMITS POLICE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT SEARCHES

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to give police
officers broad authority to conduct searches when they issue tickets
for traffic violations or other minor offenses, such as jaywalking.

The ruling puts an end to practices in Iowa and some other states
where police have searched people and their vehicles after writing
tickets for minor traffic infractions.

The decision was short, swift and unanimous. Taking only 12
paragraphs, the ruling came just a month after the case was argued and
it made clear what the justices hinted then: Such practices cannot be
justified under the Constitution's 4th Amendment, which prohibits
unreasonable searches.

That's because the searches aren't necessary to protect the officers'
safety or to preserve evidence, the court said in its ruling by Chief
Justice William Rehnquist.

Civil liberties organizations and defense attorneys hailed the ruling
Tuesday.

The ruling was a rare defeat for police organizations, which had urged
the court to approve the searches.

In recent years, the court generally has been sympathetic to law
enforcement and has given police officers wide latitude in making searches.

It was a victory for Patrick Knowles, who was pulled over for speeding
in 1996 in Iowa. After the officer gave him a ticket, he searched
Knowles and his car, where he found a bag of marijuana and a pipe.

Knowles argued that the evidence was obtained illegally, but Iowa
courts refused to suppress it, and he was convicted of possession.

At issue in the Supreme Court was whether a police officer was
justified in searching Knowles and his vehicle when he merely was
issuing a traffic citation, not making an arrest.

The Supreme Court has previously said that police officers can search
a person or his car if they are making an arrest, even if they don't
have a warrant or can't pinpoint suspicions of wrongdoing. It has said
such searches are justified to protect officers who are taking a
person into custody and to preserve evidence for later use at trial.

But if police aren't making an arrest, the 4th Amendment generally is
thought to require that the officers have some grounds to suspect
wrongdoing before they conduct a search.

Iowa officials had argued that the search was legitimate because the
police could have arrested Knowles for the traffic violation. That's
what the Iowa Supreme Court ruled when it sided against Knowles.

But the high court Tuesday said that rationale was faulty, because
there was no justification for the search.

First, the court said, the threat to officers' safety from issuing a
traffic citation is "a good deal less" than when making an arrest. The
court has approved searches when officers are making arrests because
of the danger in taking a suspect into custody and transporting him to
the police station, Rehnquist said.

That's not to say, however, that officers cannot take steps to protect
themselves when handing out tickets, the court said. They can order
drivers and passengers out of the car. And if they suspect the driver
or passengers are armed, they can pat them down and look into the
passenger compartment of the vehicle, the court noted.

Second, the court said Iowa also failed to show the search was
necessary to discover and preserve evidence. Once Knowles was stopped
for speeding and ticketed, the officer had all the evidence needed to
prosecute, the court said.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady