CAR SEARCHES AT BORDER, WEB CONTENT REVIEWED

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, taking up a border search case from
California, agreed Tuesday to decide whether agents may routinely take
apart the gas tanks and fuel lines of vehicles entering the United States.

Government lawyers said these extraordinary searches are needed to catch
drug smugglers and terrorists.

Also on Tuesday, the court said it would decide whether the government
could make it a crime for a commercial Web site to make available sexually
explicit material to minors.

The court agreed for the first time to consider enforcing a 1998 federal
law known as the Child Online Protection Act.

Fourth Amendment

In the border case, Jayson Ahern, a customs service manager, told the
Supreme Court that in the past five years, "gas tank drug seizures have
accounted for approximately 25 percent of all drug seizures" at the ports
of entry in Southern California. Gas tanks "continue to be the primary
concealment area" for smugglers of drugs, he said.

Inspectors at the border may pull a vehicle aside and disassemble the fuel
line and inspect the gas tank. They may do so on a hunch and without a
specific reason to believe the vehicle is involved in drug smuggling. If
nothing is found, a mechanic reassembles the car or truck, and the motorist
is allowed to go.

Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that these intrusive
searches go too far and violate the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable
searches and seizures." In addition to delaying an innocent person, agents
may put the driver in danger if they fail to reassemble the vehicle
correctly, said Judge Alex Kozinski.

"Where the search includes the dismantling of a mechanical part in the
motor vehicle, the driver has little independent opportunity to allay his
fear that the vehicle may leave him stranded on the freeway -- or far
worse," he wrote.

The 9th Circuit ruled that border agents may not take apart a vehicle
unless they have a "reasonable suspicion" based on specific evidence that a
motorist or his vehicle is transporting illegal drugs or other dangerous
material.

First Amendment

In the pornography case, Congress has been determined to try to shield
children and teens from pornography on the Internet. But so far,
free-speech advocates have succeeded in wielding the First Amendment as a
shield against federal enforcement.

The new case, to be heard in February, will be the third time the high
court has reviewed such measures. In each instance, the same problem has
arisen. Protecting computer-using minors from explicit sex has the effect
of limiting, to some degree, what is available to adults. According to the
lower courts, that limitation of the rights of adults violates the First
Amendment.

Six years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a law that made it
a crime to post or transmit any "indecent" message on the Internet. The
justices characterized the measure as so broad that it amounted to the
equivalent of policing people talking on the telephone.

A year later, Congress tried again and drafted a narrower law. The new
measure applied only to a "communication for commercial purposes" that was
posted on the Web. It applied only to material that was "harmful to
minors." This in turn referred to a depiction or description of "an actual
or simulated sexual act" or "a lewd exhibition of the genitals or a female
breast."

Opponents of the law say that definition is vague and could encompass a
huge amount of material. Sponsors of Internet sites that offer sex advice,
including those for people who are HIV-positive, include explicit accounts,
and these could be subject to prosecution if teenagers were shown to have
gained access to the sites, opponents of the measure said.