HIGH COURT LIMITS SEARCHES OF CARS

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 ends 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 acts cannot be
justified under the 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.

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

Civil liberties organizations and defense lawyers hailed the ruling.
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
wide latitude in searches.

It was a victory for Patrick Knowles, who was pulled over for speeding
in 1996 in Iowa. After the officer issued 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 illegal possession.

At issue in the Supreme Court was whether the 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 had previously ruled that police may 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.

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.

The high court on Tuesday ruled 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 it is 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 a police station, Rehnquist said.

That's not to say, however, that officers cannot take steps to protect
themselves when issuing tickets, the court said. They can order
drivers and passengers out of the car.

Further, 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.

"No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either
on the person of the offender or in the passenger compartment of the
car," Rehnquist wrote.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady