JUSTICES URGED TO WIDEN POLICE SEARCH POWERS

Privacy Protection For Probationers' Homes At Issue In Calif. Case

WASHINGTON - Police should be given wider authority to search convicts'
homes, the Bush administration argued yesterday in a case that presented
the Supreme Court with its first broad civil liberties question since Sept. 11.

At issue is Americans' right to privacy in their homes - without
unreasonable searches - even if they are on parole or probation.

In California, a person on probation agrees to give any police officer
permission to search his home or car without a warrant or probable cause.
The federal government supports that practice.

When the Supreme Court rules on the case, it could affect some of the 4.4
million convicts on probation or parole nationwide, along with their
families or roommates.

"A probationer's home, like anyone else's house, is protected," said public
defender Hilary A. Fox, who represents a man accused of setting a fire that
knocked out telephone service to an airport and caused $1.5 million in damage.

Mark James Knights was on probation for a misdemeanor drug offense in 1998
when Pacific Gas & Electric Co. was vandalized. Because Knights had been
disputing an unpaid bill, police woke him and his girlfriend early one
morning in his apartment near San Francisco for a surprise search. They
found a detonation cord, chemicals and books about making bombs.

Knights' arson trial is on hold while the court decides whether the search
was legal.

The case could provide the first glimpse into how the court will handle
police authority issues in the wake of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11.

Last term, the Supreme Court heard seven Fourth Amendment search and
seizure cases and sided with the government in four. The Knights case is
one of two on the schedule this year. The other involves a traffic stop
near the Mexican border.

Malcolm L. Stewart, arguing for the administration, said authorities need
leeway to protect the public from people who could be more likely to commit
other crimes.

Justices seemed to have little sympathy for Knights.

"This is terribly important that you provide a deterrent to commit other
crimes," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. "With the benefit of hindsight,
it looks like a perfectly reasonable search, for heaven's sake."

Justice Stephen Breyer said the government's role in public safety includes
incapacitating criminals by imprisoning them or monitoring them in halfway
houses or at home on probation.

Justice David H. Souter said he was unaware of a precedent that "because
someone has been convicted, the state can limit Bill of Rights entitlements."

The federal government contends that an early release is a privilege and
that those not wishing to waive their privacy rights can remain behind bars.

"It's going to be very tough to beat the government in this one," said
Robert Weisberg, a Stanford University law professor.

The California law is considered the most far-reaching in the country. The
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the searches are
unconstitutional.

"Every state will get on the bandwagon. Every attorney general in the
United States will be arguing for the same kind of exception," said John
Wesley Hall Jr., an Arkansas defense attorney who follows Fourth Amendment
cases.

States have various systems for checking up on people on probation. Some
allow only probation officers to search their homes. Arkansas and Georgia
have rules similar to California's, according to a survey by the Rutherford
Institute, a generally conservative legal group that supports Knights in
the case. Fox said Virginia also has allowed such searches.