HIGH COURT TO HEAR BUS SEARCH CASE

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is accepting the Bush
administration's request that it decide whether to bolster the power
of police to search passengers on public transportation.

Officers routinely check buses and trains for drug couriers and since
the Sept. 11 attacks have focused efforts on terrorists who could be
using public transportation.

The high court said Friday it will decide whether police who want to
look for drugs or evidence of other crimes must first must inform
passengers of their legal rights. The ruling could clarify what
police may and may not do as they approach and search a passenger.

Without mentioning the airliner hijackings specifically,
administration officials invoked the war on terrorism and the concern
over aviation security in asking the justices to take the case.

"Programs that rely on consensual interactions between police
officers and citizens on means of public transportation are an
important part of the national effort to combat the flow of illegal
narcotics and weapons," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote.

"In the current environment, they may also become an important part
of preventing other forms of criminal activity that involve travel on
the nation's system of public transportation," he added.

In another case, the Supreme Court said it will decide whether former
Alabama inmate Larry Hope may sue his guards for shackling him to a
metal pole known as the "hitching post."

Hope claims the hitching post is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual
punishment. Lower federal courts agreed but ruled that the officers
were protected from his lawsuit.

Hope told the court that he and hundreds of other prisoners were
shackled to the outdoor pole for extended periods without food, water
or bathroom breaks and were taunted by guards.

"Certainly this is a case in which the rights violated are so basic
and obvious that the petitioner should be entitled to ask a jury for
compensation," Hope wrote.

Hitching posts were used periodically in Alabama prisons for years,
but came into widespread use in 1995 as part of a get-tough approach
to criminals championed by then-Gov. Fob James. They are not used now.

In the public transportation case, it is not clear whether the
Supreme Court's ruling would apply to airplane passengers.

Stanford University law professor George Fisher said the ruling will
give officers guidance for handling any type of passenger search, but
"this case will end up being much more about drugs than about bombs."

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the federal government's argument
that police officers in Tallahassee, Fla., were within their rights
when they questioned and searched two men aboard a Greyhound bus in
1999.

Police asked to pat down the baggy clothing of Christopher Drayton
and Clifton Brown. The men agreed, and officers felt hard objects on
the men's legs that turned out to be packets of cocaine. Both men
were convicted of drug charges.

On appeal, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the cocaine
should not have been admitted as evidence, because the officers
failed to tell the men they were not required to cooperate, or
otherwise inform them of their rights.

The encounter violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable
searches and seizures, in part because the men did not feel free to
leave, the court said.

The cases are United States v. Drayton, 01-631, and Hope v. Pelzer, 01-309.

In other actions Friday, the high court:

- -Agreed to decide whether, before pleading guilty, those charged with
federal crimes have a constitutional right to see any information
collected by prosecutors that could help them fight the charges.
United States v. Ruiz, 01-595

- -Said it would mediate a dispute between the tow-truck industry and
cities that restrict towing charges and practices. The case could
have implications for motorists nationwide, and a far-reaching ruling
could restrict many other kinds of local regulations. City of
Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service, 01-419.

- -Agreed to consider when companies can be forced to pay the winning
side's attorneys fees in labor lawsuits. An appeals court said BE&K
Construction Co. had to pay the bills of unions that the company had
sued. BE&K Construction v. National Labor Relations Board, 01-518.