Lessons of Supreme Court Help Avoid Miscues

The Wyoming Highway Patrol troopers who pulled over a speeding car had no idea a passenger in the back seat 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 detail for their officers the Supreme Court’s latest do’s 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 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 a crime.

In the court’s recently ended 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 tell police when they have crossed a line they cannot.”

Stephen McSpadden, general counsel of the National Assn. 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 concerning police procedure, a 1966 decision called Miranda vs. Arizona, which 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 latest decisions, including:

* If police have reason to believe a driver has committed a crime, may they search the possessions of all the vehicle’s passengers? Yes.

* May police generally search motorists and their cars after ticketing them for routine traffic violations? No.

* Are police allowed to 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.

* May 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 in 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 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable police searches and seizures, generally requires police to obtain court warrants. But since 1925, the Supreme Court has carved out numerous exceptions when police targets are in vehicles.

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 has no fixed criminal justice agenda.

“The Warren court of the 1960s was intent on cleaning up what they saw as police abuses, and the Burger court of the 1970s and 1980s 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.”