Pubdate: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 Source: Danbury News-Times Copyright: 1999 The Danbury News-Times (CT) Contact: 333 Main Street Danbury, CT 06810 Fax: (203) 792-8730 Website: http://www.newstimes.com/ POLICE GET ANNUAL 'DO'S, DON'T'S' Supreme Court'S Latest Rulings Are Detailed For Departments The Wyoming Highway Patrol troopers who pulled over a speeding car had no idea a backseat passenger was carrying drugs in her purse. But they ended up looking inside it anyway, a search now condoned by the nation's highest court. That ruling is part of an annual summer ritual in which police departments across America are detailing for officers the Supreme Court's latest "dos" and "don'ts" of their work--guidelines that become part of the fabric of daily life. The Wyoming troopers had noticed a hypodermic syringe in the driver's shirt pocket, and he admitted having used it to take drugs. That sparked a search of the whole car. This spring, the nation's highest court said the purse search was legal even though police had no reason to suspect the passenger of any crime. In the court's recently ended 1998-1999 term, police won some and lost some. "The court defines the constitutional boundaries that have to be respected whenever the police interact with citizens," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The court's role is to tel police when they have crossed a line they cannot." Steven McSpadden, general counsel of the National Association of Police Organizations, added, "Police look to the court for clear-cut rules" at the intersection of individual rights and societal safety. Television and the movies have taught generations of Americans about the court's most famous ruling on police procedure, a 1966 decision called Miranda vs. Arizona that said police must warn criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and have a lawyer's help before questioning them. McSpadden said efforts are underway to familiarize law enforcement officers with the court's relevant latest decisions. They include these: - -If police have reason to believe a car's driver has committed a crime, may they search the possessions of all passengers in that car? Yes. - -May police generally search motorists and their cars after ticketing them for routine traffic violations? No. - -Can police let TV camera crews and other news media accompany them when they enter someone's home to conduct a search or make an arrest? No. - -Can police tell people loitering with known street gang members to move on, and arrest them if they refuse? No. - -May police, acting without court warrants, seize someone's car from a public place if they believe it was used for a crime? Yes. "What's at work here is that a court generally deferential to law enforcement is not about to let states or communities give unbridled discretion to individual officers," Shapiro said. The most important law-enforcement victory came in the Wyoming decision, one liberals criticized but McSpadden called "an example of the court's sensitivity to the needs of everyday law enforcement." The Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable police searches and seizures, generally requires police to obtain court warrants. But the Supreme Court since 1925 has carved out numerous exceptions when police targets are in vehicles. The most publicized law-enforcement setback came when the court struck down a Chicago ordinance that allowed police to break up groups of loiterers if one or more were recognized as street gang members, and to arrest those who refused to move along. In the three years it was enforced, the ordinance resulted in 45,000 arrests. McSpadden said the law was "clearly overbroad because it swept in innocent individuals who had no connection with gang activity." "Our people tell us the ordinance was an effort by Chicago's elected officials to pump up the statistics on the city's anti-gang efforts," he said. Shapiro said the Chicago ordinance "simply went too far" and let some police officers engage in "racial profiling"--treating someone as a criminal suspect based on nothing more than skin color. David Strauss, a University of Chicago law professor and police-procedure expert, said the most recent Supreme Court decisions are typical of the current court, which unlike courts led by late Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger, had no fixed criminal-justice agenda. "The Warren court of the 1960's was intent on cleaning up what they saw as police abuses, and the Burger court of the 1970's and 1980's waged a campaign to make things easier for law enforcement," Strauss said. "This court is mildly sympathetic to the needs of law enforcement but prepared to say crime-fighting efforts went too far." [inset #1] Guidelines for police Each summer the Supreme Court issues guidelines for police interaction with citizens. This set of constitutional boundaries is culled from the court's decisions from the previous year. Here's a look at some of this year's standards. Situation |Yes|No - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Can police generally search motorists and their cars | | after ticketing them for routine traffic violations? | | X - -------------------------------------------------------------------- If police have reason to believe a car's driver has | | committed a crime, may they search the possessions | X | of all passengers in the car? | | - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Can police let TV camera crews and other news media | | accompany them when they enter someone's home to | | X conduct a search or make an arrest? | | - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Can police order people loitering with known street gang | | members to move on, and arrest them if they refuse? | | X - -------------------------------------------------------------------- May police, acting without court warrants, seize | | someone's car from a public place if they believe it was | X | used for a crime? | | - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: U.S. Supreme Court AP [inset #2] Past Supreme Court rulings Associated Press Some past Supreme Court rulings on police work: - -Carroll vs. U.S., 1925: Law enforcement officers can search cars and other vehicles without court warrants if they reasonably believe they will find evidence of a crime. - -Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966: Police who intend to question criminal suspects in custody must first warn them of their rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer present, and tell them a lawyer will be appointed for them if they can't afford one. - -Terry vs. Ohio, 1968: Police who don't have "probable cause" to arrest someone but have a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal conduct may stop and question that person. If an officer fears the person may be armed, a frisk search is permitted. - -Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, 1977: Motorists stopped for routine traffic violations may be ordered by police to get out of their cars. - -Pennsylvania vs. Muniz, 1990: Police may ask suspected drunken drivers routine questions and videotape their answers without warning them of their rights, and prosecutors may use evidence such as slurred responses. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea