JUSTICES CONSIDERING DRUG SEARCH LEGALITIES

High court to decide if police need warrants

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delved into the constitutionality
of the war on drugs by agreeing to decide whether police need a warrant
before searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal.

The case, from Florida, questions the extent to which police may examine the
automobiles they impound while investigating illegal drug activity. While
courts have upheld the right of police to seize the vehicles, a question
remains whether officers may then search them without first getting a
judge's permission.

In other action, the justices let stand a lower court decision that struck
down a Cincinnati ordinance limiting campaign expenditures in City Council
elections. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ordinance ran
afoul of the Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo that generally
held campaign funding limits to be an unconstitutional restriction on free
speech.

In the Florida case, the justices will review whether police violated the
Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of Tyvessel
White's automobile and found cocaine in an ashtray. White, who had been
arrested on an unrelated charge, was subsequently charged with drug
possession.

At his trial, White asked that the cocaine evidence be thrown out because
the police lacked a warrant when they searched his vehicle. Police,
believing the car had been used several months earlier to deliver illegal
drugs, seized the automobile after arresting White.

The trial judge permitted the warrantless search, and White was convicted. A
Florida appeals court upheld the conviction, saying the police did not need
a warrant to search the car because they had probable cause to believe the
vehicle had been used to facilitate a drug deal.

However, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, saying the police needed a
warrant before searching a car seized under the state Contraband Forfeiture
Act, which allows law enforcement to impound cars.

In his successful request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the state's
appeal, Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth noted the local federal
appeals court had ruled that police do not need a warrant before searching
an impounded vehicle. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based its
ruling on Supreme Court decisions that police must be allowed to conduct
quick, warrantless searches of automobiles because cars can be driven away
in the time it would take to get approval.

Butterworth said the Florida Supreme Court decision creates the "inherently
anomalous situation" that state police need a warrant before searching a car
but that the same automobile seized for identical reasons by federal
officers may be searched without a warrant. "Such a result cannot be
permitted to stand." he added.

David Gauldin, an assistant public defender representing White, urged the
justices not to disturb the Florida Supreme Court's decision. He said the
need for police to search automobiles quickly only applies to situations on
the open road. Officers, after seizing a car, have plenty of time to get a
warrant before conducting a search, Gauldin argued.

In the campaign funding case, council members urged the Supreme Court to
hear their appeal and overturn the 6th Circuit's decision. They argued the
$140,000 limit Cincinnati places on campaign expenses removes the "pervasive
public perception" that money has corrupted local elections and politicians.

However, John Kruse, an unsuccessful candidate for council, urged the
justices to let the 6th Circuit's decision stand. Political candidates have
a First Amendment right to spend as much as they want on their campaigns,
argued Kruse, who was joined in the case by his campaign committee and two
financial contributors to Cincinnati City Council campaigns.

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst