ZOLLICOFFER'S ACTIONS SHOW FOURTH AMENDMENT'S WORTH

SO, IT'S CLEAR that the "Thurman Zollicoffer Conflict Resolution Award"
will not be handed out this year. But there's one not-so-trivial item
everyone's overlooking in the matter of our at-one-time embattled and
now-contrite city solicitor.

It's called the Fourth Amendment. The right against unlawful search and
seizure. Anybody heard of it? Is anybody proud of it, or would we like to
see it kicked to the curb like those other Bill of Rights amendments we
find so troubling like numbers One, Two, Six and Nine?

Those amendments, respectively, deal with free speech and assembly; the
right to bear arms; the right to a speedy trial; and the guarding of the
rights of citizens.

Let's recap the story you couldn't possibly have avoided hearing in the
Baltimore area this week even if you were dead and buried. On Tuesday
evening, Baltimore police stopped Lawrence D. Hutchings, 22, in the 1800
block of E. Belvedere Ave. An undercover officer said he recognized
Hutchings as the man who had sold him cocaine the night before. The
officers wanted positive identification for Hutchings, which he didn't have.

Police then took Hutchings to where he said his identification was: his
mother's home in the 1900 block of E. Belvedere Ave. Here is where the tale
gets tricky. Police reports say Sgt. William Davis, Agent Stephen Derkosh,
and Officers David Kennedy and David Thompson "secured" the house while
awaiting a search-and-seizure warrant. Others say the police started
searching the house before they got the warrant. Therein lies the controversy.

Zollicoffer's sister called to tell him that police were in the house.
Zollicoffer talked to Davis, but the conversation went nowhere. Zollicoffer
then went to his sister's house, where he made the "white Gestapo" comment
he came to regret.

"[Zollicoffer's] concern was about his sister and the police searching his
sister's house," said Tony White, spokesman for the mayor's office. "When
his sister called him, they were actually in the house, searching the house."

Zollicoffer confirmed White's comment a day later.

"That was her concern," Zollicoffer said of his sister's angst about police
allegedly searching her home without a warrant. "I really wanted to resolve
that issue. Things escalated after that. Now it's my responsibility to
bring peace back to the community. I don't want people thinking police
aren't trustworthy. I contributed to the mess - now I have to help clean it
up."

Zollicoffer sounded like a man truly sorry, amazingly so, considering what
he has been called the past few days. ("Racist" was foremost among them.)
But those of us who treat civil liberties as more than a passing fad have
to ask the questions no one - especially those in the "We Want
Zollicoffer's Barely Visible Scalp" mob - wants to answer: Were the police
searching the house of Hutchings' mother, Helen Hutchings, before they had
a search warrant, and did they have authority to be there before they had one?

According to Dwight Sullivan, who works for the Maryland chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union, there are only five reasons for police to
be in a private home:

1. They have a warrant.

2. They are in hot pursuit of a suspect. (Not pertinent here. They had
their man.)

3. They have reasonable cause to believe evidence would be destroyed.
(Perhaps valid in this case, but couldn't this entire incident have been
avoided by taking Hutchings back to the Northern District police station,
waiting for the warrant, then going to his mother's house. Because he would
have been in custody the entire time with no opportunity to call anyone,
what were the chances evidence would have been destroyed. By the way, a
weapon and paraphernalia were found in the home, but no drugs were recovered.)

4. There's something in the house causing a physical danger. (A sniper, for
example.)

5. Consent.

Even the consent criteria are tricky, said Sullivan. If Helen Hutchings had
ordered police out of her house at any time before the warrant arrived and
they refused, "at that point they became trespassers," Sullivan said. "They
didn't have authority to remain in the house."

That question about authority is precisely why Zollicoffer says he was in
his sister's house arguing with police. We've heard all the other stuff
about how Zollicoffer was supposedly out of control, enraged, abusive,
indignant and threatening. We've heard how Zollicoffer misused his
authority by getting involved in the matter. Not appropriate, some say, for
a city solicitor.

But should Zollicoffer stop caring about the Fourth Amendment just because
he's the city solicitor? Don't all of us have the right - indeed, the duty
and responsibility - to challenge police conduct if we feel it's wrong and
crosses the line and violates the Constitution?

Zollicoffer apparently does. Judging from the reaction to him, it looks as
if he belongs to the ever-shrinking body of civil libertarians in this country.