NATIONAL ASSN. OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS FILES AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF TO U.S.
SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, June 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, the National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc. (NAPO), representing more than 4,000 police
unions and associations and over 220,000 sworn law enforcement officers
from across the nation, submitted a legal brief in support of law
enforcement officers in the case of Patrick Knowles v. State of Iowa, a
Fourth Amendment vehicular search and seizure case.

This case directly bears on the authority of law enforcement officers to
protect themselves and the public by conducting a search for weapons,
whenever they stop a motor vehicle for a traffic violation and issue a
citation instead of making an arrest (assuming there is authority to do
both). NAPO and its members have a significant interest in the resolution
of this case. The Iowa State Police Association is a member of NAPO, with
approximately 3,000 police officer members, whose safety during traffic
stops will be impacted by the Court's decision. In addition, NAPO is
vitally concerned with the impact that this case will have on the safety of
law enforcement officers throughout the nation. NAPO's amicus brief
provides the Court with the perspective of the police profession and an
insight into the serious danger inherent in routine traffic stops.

BACKGROUND: FACTS OF THE CASE On March 9, 1996, Officer Ronald Cook of the
Newton, Iowa, Police Department stopped the vehicle of Petitioner in this
case, Patrick Knowles, for speeding. The officer checked the Petitioner's
driver license and determined that there were no outstanding arrest
warrants. The officer issued Knowles a speeding citation and then conducted
a search of both Knowles and the passenger compartment of his vehicle.
During that search, the officer found a pipe and some marijuana under the
driver's seat. Knowles was subsequently convicted of possession of
marijuana and keeping marijuana in his vehicle.

The officer issued a traffic citation and conducted this search as incident
to that citation, pursuant to Iowa Code 805.1. That special provision
allows law enforcement officers to issue a citation in lieu of making an
arrest, as long as the officer initially has the grounds for an arrest.
Under the statute, the issuance of a citation in lieu of an arrest or
continued custody does not affect the officer's authority to conduct an
otherwise lawful search.

Knowles moved to suppress the admissibility of the seized evidence,
claiming that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The
following facts were undisputed: (1) The officer stopped Knowles for
speeding, an offense for which he could be arrested; (2) Officer Cook had
probable cause for the stop, based on the excessive speed, but had no
probable cause or suspicion to believe that Knowles was involved in any
other criminal activity; and (3) Knowles did not consent to the search of
his vehicle.

The trial court rejected Knowles' motion to suppress the incriminating
evidence, and he was then convicted. On appeal the Iowa Supreme Court
upheld his conviction, stating "an election by the officer to pursue a
lesser intrusion, such as issuing a citation, may be conditioned on certain
aspects of detention and search that are conducive to the officer's safety."

Knowles has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the ACLU and the
National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys have jointly submitted
an amicus curiae brief on his behalf, arguing against the constitutionality
of this Iowa code provision and searches conducted under it.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS IN NAPO'S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF "Traffic stops are
inherently dangerous and risky and pose a significant threat to the
physical safety of law enforcement officers. Stopping a motor vehicle
constitutes one of the least predictable and potentially most dangerous
duties of a law enforcement officer. Each traffic stop presents a situation
where an officer, usually alone and without any other officer support, must
confront unknown individuals, who may be hiding weapons or concealing
evidence. It is not uncommon for routine traffic stops to escalate into
violence, without any prior warning to the officer," said Robert T. Scully,
NAPO's executive director.

In fact, tens of thousands of officers have been assaulted. From 1987
through 1996, there were 4,333 law enforcement officers assaulted through
use of weapons during traffic stops and pursuits. And since the advent of
the automobile, hundreds of officers have been feloniously killed by
drivers or other occupants of vehicles involved in traffic stops or pursuits.

Under the Fourth Amendment, the reasonableness of a stop and search of a
vehicle and its driver stop rests on the balance between an individual's
right of privacy and the public's significant interest in the safety of its
law enforcement officers. In Maryland v. Wilson (upholding the right of
officers to order passengers out of vehicles), the Supreme Court recognized
that officer safety during a vehicle stop is the crucial "public interest"
factor in analyzing the reasonableness of searches and seizures. (In
Maryland, the Court cited statistics showing the danger to officers, which
were taken directly from NAPO's amicus curiae brief filed in that case.)
Iowa Code 805.1(4), allowing for searches incident to a citation, is a
reasonable effort by the State of Iowa to reduce this danger to police
officers during traffic stops in a less intrusive manner than a full
custodial arrest.

Past Supreme Court cases authorize searches of persons and vehicles
incident to an arrest based on probable cause, even before an actual arrest
occurs. The purpose of such searches is to discover weapons (in order to
disarm the driver) and to preserve evidence (to prevent its destruction).
The application of the Iowa statute recognizes that a law enforcement
officer is exposed to a potentially dangerous situation whenever the
officer stops and detains a vehicle, based on probable cause that a traffic
violation has occurred. The statute is also based on the realization that
this danger exists at the onset of the stop and detention, regardless of
whether the officer eventually decides to make a formal arrest or issue a
citation in lieu of an arrest.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to recognize that the ultimate charging
decision made by the police officer (an arrest or a citation) should not
determine the validity of a search of the driver and the passenger
compartment. Limiting searches during traffic stops to only when there is
an eventual arrest would significantly increase the risk of harm to law
enforcement officers in Iowa, whenever they issue a citation instead. The
distinction between a search incident to an arrest and a search incident to
a citation is meaningless in the context of officer exposure to significant
danger.

Accordingly, searches incident to a citation instead of an arrest advance a
significant public interest in protecting officer safety and are reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, any weapon seized or evidence of crime
uncovered during such searches is properly admissible in a criminal case,
as was the evidence of criminality discovered in defendant's vehicle in
this case.

Furthermore, issuing a traffic citation is significantly less intrusive on
the public than an arrest. A requirement that an actual arrest must occur
before a search for weapons or concealed evidence can take place would
deter law enforcement officers from proceeding in this less intrusive
manner and result in more arrests for traffic offenses. The Iowa statute
follows a more reasonable approach by giving officers needed flexibility,
and thus benefits the citizens of Iowa.

In the brief's conclusion, amicus curiae National Association of Police
Organizations, Inc. urged the Supreme Court to apply the doctrine of
searches incident to arrests to issuances of citations in lieu of arrests
during traffic stops, given the substantial public interest in officer
safety, and to thereby affirm the judgment in this case of the Iowa Supreme
Court.

The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of
police unions and associations from across the United States that serves in
Washington, D.C. to advance the interests of America's law enforcement
officers through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and
education. Founded in 1978, NAPO now represents more than 4,000 police
unions and associations, over 220,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 3,000
retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common
dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski