JUSTICES EASE WAY FOR SEARCHES BY POLICE ON PUBLIC BUSES, TRAINS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court made it easier for police to board buses
and other forms of public transportation and ask passengers for permission
to search for drugs and weapons.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices said officers don't have to inform passengers
on buses, trains and subways that they have a right to refuse to cooperate
when authorities lack probable cause to obtain a warrant. The decision was
a victory for the Bush administration, which requested the court to review
the case, saying efforts to safeguard the nation's public transportation
system have become more pressing since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The case involved a routine stop by a Tallahassee, Fla., police
drug-interdiction team that netted a pair of arrests for cocaine
possession. A federal appeals court in Atlanta deemed the action
unconstitutional because the officers didn't tell passengers they weren't
required to cooperate or consent to a search.

Justice Anthony Kennedy disagreed, concluding that there was nothing
coercive or confrontational in the officers' actions that would lead a
passenger to believe he had to acquiesce. "The fact that an encounter takes
place on a bus does not on its own transform standard police questioning of
citizens into an illegal seizure," he wrote.

Three plainclothes officers boarded a Detroit-bound Greyhound bus with the
driver's permission during a scheduled stop at the downtown Tallahassee bus
station in February 1999. A pair of passengers raised suspicion because
they were wearing heavy jackets and baggy clothing on a warm day. An
officer asked one of the men, Clifton Brown Jr., for permission to frisk
him for weapons. Mr. Brown consented and the officer felt hard objects on
his thighs that resembled drug packages.

Mr. Brown was handcuffed, as was fellow passenger Christopher Drayton, who
had raised his hands several inches off his legs when an officer asked his
consent to be frisked. Police discovered bars of cocaine powder taped to
several pairs of boxer shorts worn by the two.

After their indictments, attorneys for the two men moved to suppress the
cocaine as evidence, arguing that the warrantless search was
unconstitutional. The federal appeals court agreed, concluding the
officers' actions "might make a reasonable person feel less free to leave
the bus."

Monday's ruling reversed that decision, sending the case back to a lower
court for further review. Justice David Souter filed a dissent that was
signed by justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"It is very hard to imagine that either Brown or Drayton would have
believed that he stood to lose nothing if he refused to cooperate with the
police, or that he had any free choice to ignore the police altogether,"
Justice Souter wrote. "No reasonable passenger could have believed that,
only an uncomprehending one." (U.S. v. Drayton)

Separately, the justices struck down provisions of an Ohio village's
ordinance requiring people to register with the mayor before going door to
door to advocate their causes.

Officials in Stratton, Ohio, said the 1998 law aimed to protect its 278 or
so residents -- most of whom are retirees -- from scams and fraud. But the
high court, siding with the Jehovah's Witnesses in a 8-1 vote, said the
Constitution's free-speech right includes the entitlement to take a message
directly to someone's door, and that the right can't be limited by
registration requirements.

"The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises
constitutional concerns," Justice Stevens wrote. "It is offensive -- not
only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion
of a free society -- that in the context of everyday public discourse a
citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her
neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." (Watchtower Bible v. Village
of Stratton)

On the Docket Major rulings by the Supreme Court expected as the term winds
down this month:

. School vouchers. Constitutionality of using state money to underwrite
tuition at religious schools in Cleveland. Considered a test case for
state-sponsored voucher programs nationwide. (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris)

. Executing the retarded. A reconsideration of the court's earlier
pronouncement that executing the retarded does not violate the
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. (Atkins v. Virginia)

. Cruel and unusual punishment. Whether a former Alabama inmate can sue
over the state's former practice of tying uncooperative prisoners to an
outdoor post for hours at a time. (Hope v. Pelzer)

. School drug tests. Whether public schools can do random tests of students
for drugs absent individual suspicion that a student has done anything
wrong and in a school without a pervasive drug problem. (Board of Education
of Pottawatomie County v. Earls)

. Judge-imposed death sentences. Whether a judge, instead of a jury, may
impose a death sentence. (Ring v. Arizona)

. HMOs. Whether states can try to protect HMO patients by requiring second
opinions before HMOs can deny care. Almost every state has such a law.
(Rush Prudential v. Moran)

. Free speech for judges. Can states restrict what judicial candidates may
say while running for state court seats? Most states that elect judges also
have rules meant to keep overt politics out of judicial races. (Minnesota
Republican Party v. Kelly)

. School records. Can parents or students sue schools that release personal
information about students without family consent? (Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe)

. Suing the federal government. Can American widow of a Guatemalan leftist
sue former government officials for allegedly withholding information about
her husband? (Christopher v. Harbury)

. Census fight. Can Utah claim a congressional seat awarded to North
Carolina after the 2000 census? Utah challenges legality and
constitutionality of rare census practice that estimates population of one
household based on that of its nearest neighbor. (Utah v. Evans)

. Plea bargains. Do criminal defendants have the right to any potentially
exculpatory evidence the government may have before deciding whether to
plead guilty? (U.S. v. Ruiz)

. Judge-determined sentencing enhancements. Whether judges alone can
determine a factor that raises the mandatory minimum amount of prison time,
or whether that factor must be part of an indictment and considered by a
jury. (U.S. v. Harris)