COURT STRIKES DOWN MOTORIST SEARCHES

Officer Safety Not Enough To Justify Practice In Minor Stops

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 Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches.

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

"Neither of these underlying rationales . . . is sufficient to justify
the search in the present case," Rehnquist said in the opinion.

Civil-liberties organizations and defense attorneys hailed the ruling
Tuesday. The groups had said a contrary decision "would deprive countless
innocent citizens of constitutionally protected interests in privacy,
dignity and liberty."

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 Fourth 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 is 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 is 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.

(Copyright 1998 SaltLakeTribune 12/09/98)

Checked-by: Pat Dolan