JUSTICES MULL IOWA CAR-SEARCH POLICY

WASHINGTON -- When police pulled over Patrick Knowles for speeding, he
got a ticket and an even more unpleasant surprise: He was ordered out
of his car so an officer could search it.

The officer found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe, so he
arrested the Iowa man. With that, the routine traffic stop in Newton,
Iowa, eventually became an issue for the Supreme Court.

The justices Tuesday considered whether police trampled Knowles'
constitutional rights when they searched his car without his consent
after giving him a ticket for a traffic violation. Knowles' lawyers
argued that the case presented a "frightening expansion of police
power," and several of the justices appeared to agree.

"It does seem an enormous amount of authority to put in the hands of
police," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Iowa assistant attorney
general who argued the case. "We do have constitutional checks because
we're not always so sure police will exercise good judgment."

At issue is whether the police can search a person and his vehicle
when merely issuing a traffic citation, instead of making an arrest.

The court has said that police always can search a person or his
vehicle if he is being arrested. But if they aren't making an arrest,
the 4th Amendment generally is thought to require that police have
some grounds to suspect wrongdoing before conducting a search.

Bridget Chambers, the assistant Iowa attorney general, argued that the
search of Knowles' car was legitimate because the police could have
arrested him for the traffic violation. That's what the Iowa Supreme
Court ruled, on a 5-4 vote, when it sided against Knowles.

The case dates to 1996, when Knowles was stopped for speeding in
Newton. After the officer gave him a ticket, he searched Knowles and
the passenger compartment of his car, where he found the marijuana and
the pipe.

Knowles argued that the evidence was obtained illegally, but Iowa
courts allowed it to be used against him. He was convicted of
possession and sentenced to 90 days in jail.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Knowles argued that the search was
unreasonable under the 4th Amendment, which protects people from
unreasonable searches and seizures. About 400,000 people get traffic
tickets each year in Iowa, asserted Knowles' lawyer, Paul Rosenberg.

Additionally, the justices noted that police could conduct searches in
other kinds of cases where they issue tickets.

Justice John Paul Stevens, for example, asked if police could search a
jaywalker. Chambers said yes, arguing it was permissible because the
officer could have gone beyond a search and arrested the jaywalker.

"In every case where the officer can search, the officer also can make
an custodial arrest," Chambers said, adding that several other states
have similar laws.

Later, Ginsburg suggested that "maybe the good citizens of Iowa would
get a little upset if they get arrested every time they forget to
signal when they turn."

Several justices pointed out the difference in a search conducted with
an arrest and a search in connection with a ticket.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that the court has allowed
police to conduct a search after making an arrest in order to preserve
evidence or to protect the officer. Those considerations don't exist
in cases like Knowles', several justices noted.

The justices also expressed concern that officers might arrest people
simply so they could search their cars. If they found no evidence of
wrongdoing, they would release them, they speculated. When Justice
Anthony Kennedy said that approach would be an "abuse of authority,"

Chambers acknowledged that such conduct could occur.

Also Tuesday, the court unanimously ruled against an actress who
accused an actors union of deceiving her about her obligation to pay
union dues.

The court ruled that unions do not have to tell workers they are not
required to become full union members.

Stefan Gleason, a lawyer for the actress, said the court's ruling
gives unions "a thumbs-up to continue their deception."

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia allow "union shop"
agreements that require all of a company's employees to pay some type
of union dues.

But the high court has limited such agreements, ruling that employees
can't be forced to be full members, pay full dues or support a union's
political activities. However, they can be required to pay a reduced
fee to cover contract negotiations, the court has ruled.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady