JUSTICES REVIEW POLICE CONDUCT ON SEARCHES, SEIZURE OF PROPERTY

WASHINGTON -- An intensely skeptical Supreme Court on Tuesday
questioned whether police may search the cars of motorists they cite
for traffic violations and to what extent law enforcement personnel
must tell people how they can recover property seized under a warrant.

The justices, hearing the appeal of an Iowa motorist, often asked the
state's lawyer pointed questions as she sought to defend the
constitutionality of a police officer's search of the car.

In the other case, an appeal brought by West Covina, Calif., the high
court urged the city's attorney to explain why police failed to give
property owners enough information to enable them to recover their
seized items.

The two cases presented variations on the constitutional right of
people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, embodied in
the Fourth Amendment.

Assistant Iowa Attorney General Bridget Chambers said police acted
reasonably in searching Patrick Knowles' car after citing him for speeding.

David Lawrence, a private attorney representing West Covina, argued
that city police officers had no constitutional obligation to spell
out how Lawrence and Clara Perkins could recover goods the police seized.

In the Iowa case, several justices appeared critical of the seemingly
unchecked authority of Iowa police officers to search cars of
motorists cited for traffic violations. Under intense questioning,
Chambers conceded that Iowa police could search people who have been
cited for other minor offenses.

"Can you be strip searched for jaywalking?" Justice Antonin Scalia
asked.

No, Chambers responded. But, she said police may conduct more limited
searches of people suspected of committing an offense for which an
arrest can be made, such as a traffic violation or jaywalking.

"That's a pretty good situation for the police," Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg interjected. People would be better off if they are arrested
because at least then the police would have to inform them of their
rights to remain silent and to an attorney, Ginsburg said.

Chambers was urging the justices to affirm an Iowa Supreme Court
decision upholding Knowles' drug conviction. After a police officer,
who cited Knowles for speeding, searched the car and found marijuana,
Knowles was convicted of possession of an illegal substance.

Knowles challenged his conviction, arguing that the officer found the
drugs during an illegal search. The Supreme Court has ruled that
police may search a car after arresting a motorist but has not upheld
searches following citations.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked Chambers whether a police officer
could constitutionally arrest a motorist temporarily, conduct a search
and then release the driver if the examination yields no incriminating
evidence.

"It may not be good public policy," Chambers responded, but it would
not be unconstitutional.

Chambers defended the actions of Iowa police, saying the legislature
would curb that authority if abuse occurred.

Countering Chambers, Knowles' attorney said police officers may search
a motorist's car only after arresting the driver. However, some
justices asked whether a police officer has in fact "arrested" a
motorist simply by pulling him over.

"The police officer is telling you, `Go no further,' " Scalia said to
the attorney, Paul Rosenberg of Des Moines, Iowa. Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor added that a motorist stopped by a police officer is not free
to leave even if the driver has not been formally arrested.

Rosenberg responded that court decisions involving searches have
distinguished between arrests and traffic stops.

The West Covina case involved the Perkinses' effort to recover items
the police seized as part of an investigation of a tenant in their
house who was suspected in a fatal shooting. A note the police left to
inform the Perkinses of the seizure failed to include a search-warrant
number, which the court said they needed in order to recover their
property.

The Perkinses sued West Covina, saying their constitutional
due-process rights were violated by the police's failure to provide
complete information on how they could retrieve their property, which
included a starter pistol and $2,469 in cash. The U.S. District Court
for Central California ruled for the city, but the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of appeals reversed the decision, concluding that the police
should have provided all the information that the Perkinses would need
to get their property back.

Lawrence, the city's attorney, told the justices that the 9th Circuit
failed to consider the bulk of information the police gave the
Perkinses about their property, including what items were taken, by
whom and which officers they should contact if they had questions. But
that list apparently did not assuage O'Connor's concern that the
Perkinses lacked the required information, the search-warrant number.

"I wonder why the city doesn't want to help its citizens" recover
seized property, O'Connor said.

Attorney Patrick Smith of Los Angeles, pressing the Perkinses' case,
said that people should not have to hire a lawyer to file a court
motion to recover property seized by the police. The justices are
expected to render their decisions in the two cases, West Covina,
Calif. vs. Perkins and Knowles vs. Iowa, by July.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry