SUPREME COURT REVIEWS POLICE RIGHTS TO CONDUCT SEARCHES

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices were skeptical Tuesday about giving
police blanket authority to search people and their cars without consent
after ticketing them for routine violations. "It does seem an enormous
amount of authority to put into the hands of the police," Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg said. "We do have constitutional checks because we're not
always sure that the police will exercise good judgment."

"If somebody jaywalks, the police could search them?" Justice John Paul
Stevens asked.

"Correct," said Iowa Assistant Attorney General Bridget A. Chambers.

An Iowa man's lawyer argued his rights were violated by a police search of
his car that turned up marijuana.

Patrick Knowles was stopped for speeding March 6, 1996, in Newton, Iowa. An
officer gave him a speeding ticket and then searched Knowles and his car's
passenger compartment.

Knowles argued the search violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable searches. Iowa courts allowed the marijuana
to be used as evidence, and Knowles was convicted and sentenced to 90 days
in jail.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case by July.

The justices ruled in 1973 that police can search people upon arrest,
citing a need to disarm suspects and preserve evidence.

Iowa law allows police to either make an arrest or issue a citation for any
traffic violation. If they issue a citation, they can make an "otherwise
lawful search."

The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted the provision to allow police to
conduct a search whenever they could have arrested someone, even if they
decide instead to issue a citation.

Knowles' appeal to the Supreme Court said Iowa was the only state to
authorize a search whenever a traffic citation is issued.

About 400,000 people are given traffic tickets each year in Iowa, said
Knowles' lawyer, Paul Rosenberg. Police can invoke their authority to
conduct searches only selectively because if everyone given a traffic
ticket were searched, "the people wouldn't stand for it," he said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted police officers already have
authority to conduct a search to protect their own safety.

Regarding a need to preserve evidence, the chief justice added, "When you
have a traffic stop, you're not going to find any more evidence of speeding
when you search a person's car."

Justice Antonin Scalia asked Chambers whether an officer could stop
someone, arrest and search them, then drop the arrest.

Yes, she said. "Wow," Scalia responded.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted the Supreme Court's 1973 decision allows
police to conduct a "search incident to arrest."

"You want to turn it around and have an arrest incident to search," Kennedy
said, adding, "It seems to me that would be an abuse of authority."

Chambers said that if police did commit abuses, the Iowa legislature could
act to curb the authority to search. She also said it was "far from
routine" for police to search people after giving them a traffic ticket,
partly because the Iowa policy was challenged in court.

Kennedy asked Rosenberg whether a police officer could offer a motorist a
trade - submit to a search in exchange for not being arrested. "Why
couldn't he give him that choice?" Kennedy asked.

In such a case, the consent to a search may not be considered valid because
it was coerced, Rosenberg said.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski