Justices Limit Police ‘Squeeze’ Searches of Bags

The Supreme Court limited the power of police to search travelers for drugs Monday, ruling that officers may not feel or squeeze carry-on bags to detect narcotics.

Passengers consider their carry-on bags personal and private, the justices said, even when they are put into an overhead bin. They do not expect police to take advantage of the opportunity to feel the bags in search of drugs, they said.

The 7-2 decision reversed the drug conviction of a California man who was arrested aboard a Greyhound bus when it stopped near a border checkpoint in Texas. A federal border patrol agent, having checked the immigration status of the passengers, then walked the aisle and squeezed the bags overhead.

In a green canvas bag, the agent felt a “brick-like” object. Inside, he found a block of methamphetamine wrapped in tape.

The bag belonged to passenger Steven D. Bond. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute the drug and sentenced to 57 months in prison.

Clinton administration lawyers said that the search was entirely legal.

But conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, speaking for the high court, disagreed and said that passengers do not give up the privacy of their personal items when they board a public carrier.

The 4th Amendment protects “the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches,” noted Rehnquist, and “a traveler’s personal luggage is clearly an ‘effect’ protected by the amendment,” he said.

The decision (Bond vs. United States, 98-9349) clearly covers passengers and their carry-on bags on buses, trains and other common carriers but not necessarily on airplanes.

Because of security concerns, airline passengers are said to have a lesser expectation of privacy. Since the wave of hijackings in the 1970s, searches of passengers and their belongings have become standard. In the past, judges have rejected constitutional challenges to these searches.

Monday’s ruling will not alter the status of those security searches.

The decision marks the second time in two months that the high court has overturned a conviction on 4th Amendment grounds.

Last month, the justices unanimously threw out gun-carrying charges against a Miami teenager who was arrested after police received an anonymous tip. In that case, the court said that officers need reliable and credible information before they stop and frisk a pedestrian.

Both decisions came as something of a surprise. Over the last decade, the justices have given police broad power to conduct criminal searches, especially when drugs are involved.

For example, the court in 1989 upheld the use of low-flying helicopters to spot marijuana plants growing in the backyards of private homes. Because the plants could be seen from the air, homeowners had no reasonable expectation of privacy, the court said then.

On Monday, however, the chief justice drew a distinction between touching and seeing. “Physically invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection,” he said.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton appointee, complained in dissent that the ruling will deter law enforcement officers from searching for drugs in “publicly exposed bags.”

If a passenger has something to hide, he should “pack the contents in a suitcase with hard sides,” Breyer advised. Justice Antonin Scalia joined his dissent.

Meanwhile, in other actions, the court:

* Shielded the railroads from being sued for accidents at grade crossings, which are blamed on inadequate warning signals (Norfolk Southern vs. Shanklin, 9-312).

Since 1973, federal funds have been used to install various warnings at rail crossings. By a 7-2 vote, the justices said that this federal authority shields railroads from liability.

* Refused to hear a challenge to a Los Angeles County school district’s refusal to post the Ten Commandments at a baseball field (DiLoreto vs. Board of Education of Downey Unified School District, 99-1345).

When baseball boosters at Downey High School sought to raise money by putting ads on the outfield wall, Edward DiLoreto offered to pay $400 for an ad including the Ten Commandments. The school refused, and he sued. But two courts in California ruled that school officials are free to accept only ads that they believe are appropriate.

* Agreed to decide whether state employees with disabilities are protected by federal anti-discrimination law. This new test of states rights (University of Alabama vs. Garrett, 99-1240) will be heard in the fall.