Law

SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP CASE OF TRAFFIC-STOP ARREST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider the scope of
police power to arrest all occupants of a car during a traffic stop,
agreeing to look at a case from Maryland in which everyone in a car denied
knowledge of drugs and a roll of cash found inside.

Separately, the Supreme Court rejected a civil-liberties challenge to
post-Sept. 11 law-enforcement spying, refusing to expedite hearing a
dispute over the boundaries of a law that gave the government broader
surveillance authority after the terrorist attacks.

The case from Maryland continues a line of Supreme Court cases clarifying
when officers have probable cause and can apprehend someone without a
warrant. In this case, the court will consider whether it was an
unconstitutional stretch for the officer to link the front-seat passenger
to drugs found in a back armrest, and then to arrest all three people in
the car.

Twenty states had urged the court to hear the case, involving a 1999
early-morning traffic stop in Baltimore County that yielded $763 in the
glove compartment and five baggies of cocaine in an armrest in the backseat.

"Countless times each day, officers make traffic stops and uncover
contraband in multipassenger situations. Police need the clarity of
authority to know who may be arrested in such cases," Maryland Attorney
General Joseph Curran argued in a court filing.

Joseph Jermaine Pringle, the front-seat passenger, was convicted of drug
charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He later told police that the
drugs were his and that he had planned to swap them for sex or money at a
party.

An appeals court threw out Mr. Pringle's conviction on grounds that his
arrest was unconstitutional and the confession was tainted.

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches or
seizures. That means police almost always need a warrant to search
someone's house without permission, but the Supreme Court has interpreted
the protection more narrowly when it comes to automobiles and public
transportation. (Maryland v. Pringle)

ACLU Challenged Surveillance Powers

In the domestic spying case, the American Civil Liberties Union and other
organizations wanted the justices to consider when the government should be
allowed to monitor someone's telephone conversations and e-mail, then use
the information to prosecute them.

The Bush administration has argued that the surveillance, and a special
court that oversees sensitive domestic-espionage tactics, are indispensable
tools in the war on terror.

The ACLU used an unusual maneuver to get the case to the Supreme Court,
filing an appeal on behalf of people who don't even know they are being
monitored. The justices would have had to give special permission to allow
it. They refused, without comment.

The action wasn't a ruling on the merits of the ACLU's challenge, and the
issue is expected to return to the high court later.

The administration has aggressively defended its use of wiretaps approved
by the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or "spy
court," which deals with intelligence requests involving suspected spies,
terrorists or foreign agents.

Issues that have inspired the court challenges include government spying,
secret detentions, confidential deportation hearings, imprisonment of
wartime prisoners without lawyers and access to suspected foreign
terrorists held at undisclosed overseas locations.

Even the spy court had reservations about that aggressiveness. In May, the
court ruled that the USA Patriot Act didn't justify the use of certain
investigative techniques proposed by the administration. Attorney General
John Ashcroft appealed to a review court, which had never met or issued a
decision during the spy court's 25-year existence.

That review court sided with the administration and said government
officials didn't have to limit their monitoring to foreign intelligence.
That means law-enforcement officers can use the information to build cases
for prosecution.

The review-court decision "opens the door to surveillance abuses that
seriously threatened our democracy in the past," justices were told in the
filing by the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab Community
Center for Economic and Social Services.

To get a warrant from the spy court, the government must show that a
suspect probably is a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power." Law
enforcement must meet a higher standard -- probable cause that a crime was
committed -- to get an ordinary criminal warrant for wiretapping or other
electronic intrusion.

The administration didn't respond to the ACLU's appeal. Any of the nine
justices could have demanded a response, but none did.

The spy court has approved thousands of warrants since it was established
by Congress in 1978, and it only rarely turns down the government. In
testimony to Congress earlier this month, Mr. Ashcroft said there were more
than 1,000 applications in 2002 for warrants under the Federal Intelligence
Surveillance Act.

Since the 2001 terror attacks, Mr. Ashcroft personally has approved more
than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants, authorized by the FISA and
expanded by the USA Patriot Act. That's triple the number of emergency
warrants used in the FISA's previous 23 years. The warrants let authorities
tap telephones and fax numbers and conduct physical searches for up to 72
hours before they are subject to the spy court's review.

The case is one of two at the Supreme Court involving issues related to the
terrorist attacks. The other challenges the government's holding of closed
deportation hearings after the attacks.

Decision Stands In Discrimination Case

In other action Monday, the court let stand a lower court decision that
ruled a gay employee can sue under federal discrimination laws for
harassment over their sexual orientation. The question arose after a gay
butler at MGM Grand Hotel LLC, a unit of MGM Mirage Inc. of Las Vegas,
complained of sexual harassment after the hotel fired him. (MGM Grand Hotel
v. Rene)

The Supreme Court also rejected an appeal over contested rules for
competition for telephone and Internet services. The appeal had essentially
become moot because the contested rules were being overhauled by the
Federal Communications Commission, the Bush administration told the court.
New rules were approved last month.

AT&T Corp., WorldCom Inc. and other companies appealed a ruling that forced
federal regulators to reconsider how to allow telecommunications companies
to compete against each other. (WorldCom Inc. v. United States Telecom
Association)