U.S. SUPREME COURT BANS SEARCHES IN TRAFFIC CASES

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that
the police may not do a full-blown search of motorists and their vehicles
if they have only been stopped and ticketed for routine traffic violations.

The high court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, refused
to give the police the same power to conduct a search in cases of traffic
citations as has existed since 1973 for motorists who have been arrested.

The ruling was unusual in that the conservative-controlled court in recent
years has generally expanded the power of the police to conduct searches
and seizures of evidence, especially in traffic-stop situations.

The ruling was a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union and a
defeat for police groups. The National Association of Police Organizations
told the high court that traffic stops were inherently dangerous and posed
a significant threat to the safety of law enforcement officers.

The ruling's impact, however, will be limited as Iowa has been the only
state to allow a search of someone stopped for a traffic citation -- a law
that has been in effect since 1983.

The case involved an Iowa police officer who stopped Patrick Knowles for
speeding on March 6, 1996, in Newton, Iowa, and issued him a citation
rather than arresting him.

The officer then conducted a full search of the car, without Knowles'
consent or suspicion a crime may have been committed. He found marijuana
and a pot pipe, and arrested Knowles.

Knowles was convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to 90 days
in jail. He sought to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was an
illegal search.

Rehnquist said the search was authorized by state law, but nonetheless
violated the constitutional guarantee under the Fourth Amendment protecting
privacy rights and guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures of
evidence.

Rehnquist said searches have been allowed when a suspect has been arrested
because of concern for officer safety and because of the need to discover
and preserve evidence. These two conditions do not apply to traffic
citations, he said.

``While concern for officer safety ... 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 intrusions attending a
full ... search,'' Rehnquist wrote in the six-page opinion.

He said officers have other independent ways to search for weapons and
protect themselves from danger, and concluded that the search was not
justified to get evidence.

``Once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the
evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained,'' 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,'' he
said.

If a police officer suspects the driver of an undetected crime, the
motorist then should be arrested, Rehnquist said.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski