NO BLANKET SEARCHES

High court bolsters Fourth Amendment.

It was refreshing to see the U.S. Supreme Court come down strongly and
unanimously on behalf of the right of citizens to be secure from
unreasonable, warrantless police searches.

Tuesday's ruling buttressed the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which
had been fraying at the edges as state and local police forces in
recent years became more bold in conducting warrantless searches.

The case on which the high court rendered its unanimous decision
involved an Iowa man, Patrick Knowles, who was stopped for speeding in
1996 and ended up in jail for 90 days on a marijuana possession rap.
The officer who conducted the routine traffic stop had no evidence
that Mr. Knowles had committed any other infraction or crimes.

Yet he proceeded, under Iowa law, to conduct a blanket, warrantless
search of the vehicle.

The search turned up a marijuana pipe, which was enough to land Mr.
Knowles in lockup for three months.

But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court overturned Mr. Knowles' conviction.
The officer had no evidence, no probable cause or even reasonable
suspicion that Mr. Knowles was breaking any law except the speed limit.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist 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." The chief justice pointed out that police do possess the power
to order occupants out of the car, and even pat-down search them -- if
such officers have cause to believe the occupants are armed and the
officers' safety is in jeopardy.

But the Iowa case met no such standard.

The officer decided to search Mr. Knowles' car just because he felt
like it. The Supreme Court, viewed it for what it was -- an
unreasonable, warrantless search in clear violation of the Bill of
Rights' Fourth Amendment.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady