Court to Review 2 California Drug Case Rulings

Heeding pleas from state prosecutors, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would review two cases in which California courts threw out drug evidence seized by the police.

In one case, a state appeals court ruled that policemen patrolling a high crime area in Oakland had no valid basis for chasing a fleeing young male, and, therefore, could not legally seize cocaine that he had thrown to the ground.

In the second case, a state appeals court in Orange County ruled that police officers in Santa Ana acted illegally when they seized a bag full of marijuana from an auto trunk without obtaining a search warrant.

State Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp urged the Supreme Court to hear the cases because, he said, the California courts are in “hopeless disarray” on how to apply the 4th Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Prosecutors and police contend that the war on drugs has been hampered by hypertechnical applications of the 4th Amendment and the so-called “exclusionary rule.” If officers are judged to have acted illegally in searching for or seizing evidence, the evidence is excluded from a trial, which often permits a crime suspect to go free.

In recent years, the Supreme Court, under conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, has shown sympathy for the prosecutors’ view and has appeared to be on the lookout for cases in which drug evidence has been tossed out of court. But civil libertarians, as well as many state judges, say they worry that police officers are being given unfettered power to stop citizens and seize their belongings as part of the war on drugs.

The Oakland case began on the night of April 18, 1988, when two officers in a patrol car came upon four youths standing near a car parked at the curb. On spotting the policemen, the young men fled. The officers chased them. One young man made a wrong turn and nearly ran into an officer. Before he was caught, the youth tossed aside what later proved to be a lump of cocaine.

Based on this account, a state appeals court ruled that police did not have “specific and articulable facts” of a crime in progress and, therefore, had no legal reason for chasing the young men. The cocaine evidence must be thrown out, the court said in the case (California vs. Hodari D., 89-1632).

In March, the California Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal. But, on Monday, the high court justices announced that they would hear the case, probably in January.

The Orange County case arose when police officers in Santa Ana traced a shipment of marijuana as it was delivered to the home of J. R. Daza on West Stevens Avenue. Officers saw Charles S. Acevedo enter the Daza residence and come out a few minutes later with a full paper bag. He placed the bag in the trunk of his car and drove away. Policemen stopped Acevedo, opened the trunk and found a bag containing marijuana.

Based on this record, a three-judge court in Santa Ana ruled that officers should have obtained a warrant from a magistrate before entering the locked trunk. The state Supreme Court refused to hear this case also.

In earlier rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that officers who have evidence that a motorist has committed a crime may search his entire car. But, in other rulings, the court has suggested that a locked trunk containing luggage is entitled to a higher level of privacy than the rest the car.

Attorneys for Van de Kamp said that the case (California vs. Acevedo, 89-1690) gives the justices a chance to clear up the confusion.

In a third case from California, the justices will decide whether Riverside County is violating the rights of arrested persons by holding them for up to five days before they are given a hearing.

Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that persons under arrest are entitled to a hearing within 36 hours. In 1975, the Supreme Court said that, when policemen arrest a suspect without having warrant, they must offer the suspect a “prompt hearing” before a magistrate.

Lawyers for the county said that California law calls for a hearing within 48 hours and that they are “in full compliance with state law.” But they concede that, when the courts are closed--on weekends or holidays--this 48-hour period could stretch into several days. The case (Riverside vs. McLaughlin, 89-1817) will probably be heard in January.