Pubdate: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 Source: Orange County Register Section: metro, page 1 Contact: Stuart Pfeifer and Mark Katches LEGISLATION: Wilson rejects a measure requiring a warrant to affix such devices to suspects' cars. SACRAMENTO Gov.Pete Wilson, saying he did not want to create new legal loopholes for criminals, vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have required police to obtain a court order each time they electronically follow suspects' vehicles. Senate Bill 443, authored in reaction to an Orange County Register report that detailed how police across the country secretly follow cars on computer screens, had been supported by a bipartisan majority in both the Senate and the assembly. State Sen.John Burton, DSan Francisco, and Ross Johnson, RIrvine, said they feared the technology could be abused without judicial oversight. But Wilson said there was no documented evidence of abuse. The governor also said he was concerned about a portion of the law that would have called for the suppression of evidence collected after unauthorized monitoring by police. "Too many murders and rapists have been set free on technical violations to contemplate tossing out evidence based on speculative concerns regarding conduct which has been held lawful by U.S.Supreme Court," Wilson said in a statement. In a 1983 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police were within the law when they followed a radio beeper hidden in a container of chemicals as it was trucked to a clandestine drug lab. The court ruled that a motorist has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" while driving on a public road. It did not, however, address whether police need a warrant to affix a transmitter to a vehicle. Burton said he was disappointed by the veto, particularly because he had amended the bill to address concerns raised by law enforcement. Police organizations had lobbied heavily against the bill. "I think it (the veto) defies logic," Burton said. "I understand law enforcement wants to make their job easier. I also understand individuals have a right to protection from the forces of the state." Southern California police agencies have used Teletrac Inc.technology to obtain more than 100,000 reports on vehicle locations since 1992, according to billing records reviewed by the Register. Those records do not indicate the number of cars that were monitored; police agencies have refused to identify the cases. Criminal defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates said they were outraged to learn of the secret police surveillance, detailed in a series of Register articles earlier this year. But police maintain they use the technology only as a tool in undercover surveillance. They note that the technology allows officers to keep a safe distance while they follow cars. In most instances, the tracking devicesabout the size of a videocassetteare attached to the undercarriage of a car with a magnet, police said. They said they do not need a warrant unless they make entry into a vehicle. "Fortunately some common sense prevailed, and the bill is dead," said Orange County District Attorney Michael Capizzi. Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the secret installation of a tracking device violates the U.S.Constitution. "The governor ought to go back and study American history," she said. "It's really outrageous that he would not agree that a police officer should have to get a warrant from an impartial judge." The technology is utilized most often in narcotics cases, which rely heavily on surveillance, police said. Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust, who supervises narcotics prosecutions in the county, lauded Wilson's decision. "It was primarily a device for officer safety and citizen safety," Armbrust said. "When crooks think they're being followed, they get scared and try to run. That's when people crash; that's when people get hurt. If police can follow a car from a reasonable distance, it's unlikely people will get spooked." Burton said he and Johnson will consider their options, which include seeking to override the veto or amending the bill to address Wilson's concerns.