COURT AFFIRMS TRAFFIC-STOP POWERS

WASHINGTON - A unanimous Supreme Court clarified police powers to stop
vehicles if an officer has reason to suspect a crime, ruling Tuesday
that a Border Patrol officer was justified in stopping a minivan that
turned out to be carrying 125 pounds of marijuana.

The officer gave numerous reasons for stopping the van, each of which
might have an innocent explanation, Chief Justice William Rehnquist
wrote for the court. But taken together, the officers' reasons were
enough, the court said.

Reinforcing its earlier views in similar cases, the Supreme Court said
that the appropriateness of a police stop must be judged on the
"totality of the circumstances," in each case.

"This process allows officers to draw on their own experience and
specialized training," Rehnquist wrote.

The case involves a 1998 traffic stop in Arizona, near the Mexican
border. Ralph Arvizu was driving on a back road often used by drug
smugglers at the hour of a Border Patrol shift change, when smugglers
figure that most officers will be at the station house and not on patrol.

Arvizu slowed, looked nervous and failed to wave at the officer,
although children in the van were waving vigorously, the officer said.
Also, the van was registered in a high-crime neighborhood, and
minivans are a favored tool of smugglers, he said.

Suits on workers' behalf OK

WASHINGTON - The federal agency assigned to root out discrimination on
the job can seek money or other damages in court for employees who
have signed away their own rights to sue, a divided Supreme Court
ruled Tuesday.

In a setback for employers, the high court held that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission may sue on behalf of a short-order
cook fired after he had a seizure at a Waffle House restaurant.

Like about 10 percent of American workers, Eric Scott Baker agreed
when he was hired that any on-the-job dispute would be resolved by
arbitration.

The EEOC did not sign such an agreement, and is not bound by it,
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

The EEOC is "the master of its own case," and free to decide for
itself whether it is in the public's interest to pursue a given
lawsuit, Stevens wrote for the majority.

The agency had argued it should be able to ignore an arbitration
agreement if pursuing the case would help employees in general or
would make examples of employers who mistreat their workers.

Park permit process upheld

WASHINGTON - A city system to decide which groups or events may use
scarce parkland is not an unconstitutional curb on free speech, a
unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

Chicago's procedures for granting or denying permits have nothing to
do with regulating the content of speech in city parks, and everything
to do with efficiency and public safety, the court said in an opinion
written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

The ruling underscores localities' power to regulate use of their own
resources, so long as the rules are "content neutral."

"The Park District's ordinance does not authorize a licensor to pass
judgment on the content of speech," Scalia wrote. "None of the grounds
for denying a permit has anything to do with what a speaker might say."

The court upheld lower court rulings against a group whose 1997
application was rejected. The Windy City Hemp Development Board wanted
to hold a rally in support of legalized marijuana.

The hemp group argued that the city's permit decisions can be
capricious, and that the system gives too much power to administrators
to pick and choose which events to allow.