Pubdate: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 Source: Houston Chronicle (TX) Contact: http://www.chron.com/ Copyright: 1998 Houston Chronicle Author: Steve Lash JUSTICES CONSIDERING DRUG SEARCH LEGALITIES High court to decide if police need warrants WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delved into the constitutionality of the war on drugs by agreeing to decide whether police need a warrant before searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal. The case, from Florida, questions the extent to which police may examine the automobiles they impound while investigating illegal drug activity. While courts have upheld the right of police to seize the vehicles, a question remains whether officers may then search them without first getting a judge's permission. In other action, the justices let stand a lower court decision that struck down a Cincinnati ordinance limiting campaign expenditures in City Council elections. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ordinance ran afoul of the Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo that generally held campaign funding limits to be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. In the Florida case, the justices will review whether police violated the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of Tyvessel White's automobile and found cocaine in an ashtray. White, who had been arrested on an unrelated charge, was subsequently charged with drug possession. At his trial, White asked that the cocaine evidence be thrown out because the police lacked a warrant when they searched his vehicle. Police, believing the car had been used several months earlier to deliver illegal drugs, seized the automobile after arresting White. The trial judge permitted the warrantless search, and White was convicted. A Florida appeals court upheld the conviction, saying the police did not need a warrant to search the car because they had probable cause to believe the vehicle had been used to facilitate a drug deal. However, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, saying the police needed a warrant before searching a car seized under the state Contraband Forfeiture Act, which allows law enforcement to impound cars. In his successful request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the state's appeal, Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth noted the local federal appeals court had ruled that police do not need a warrant before searching an impounded vehicle. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based its ruling on Supreme Court decisions that police must be allowed to conduct quick, warrantless searches of automobiles because cars can be driven away in the time it would take to get approval. Butterworth said the Florida Supreme Court decision creates the "inherently anomalous situation" that state police need a warrant before searching a car but that the same automobile seized for identical reasons by federal officers may be searched without a warrant. "Such a result cannot be permitted to stand." he added. David Gauldin, an assistant public defender representing White, urged the justices not to disturb the Florida Supreme Court's decision. He said the need for police to search automobiles quickly only applies to situations on the open road. Officers, after seizing a car, have plenty of time to get a warrant before conducting a search, Gauldin argued. In the campaign funding case, council members urged the Supreme Court to hear their appeal and overturn the 6th Circuit's decision. They argued the $140,000 limit Cincinnati places on campaign expenses removes the "pervasive public perception" that money has corrupted local elections and politicians. However, John Kruse, an unsuccessful candidate for council, urged the justices to let the 6th Circuit's decision stand. Political candidates have a First Amendment right to spend as much as they want on their campaigns, argued Kruse, who was joined in the case by his campaign committee and two financial contributors to Cincinnati City Council campaigns. - --- Checked-by: Rolf Ernst