Justices draw the line with underwear searches
July 8, 2002 Posted: 10:04 AM EDT (1404 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme
Court is OK with police searching the
baggy jeans of bus passengers, but
justices get a little squeamish when the
search involves the underwear of a
man in his own home.
The court decided two Fourth Amendment
search and seizure cases within a week of
each other last month.
The bus search case overshadowed the
underpants search challenge because of its
impact on the government's anti-terrorism
efforts.
Police without search warrants can
question passengers on buses and trains and look for evidence without informing
them that they can refuse, the court ruled. Justices affirmed drug convictions of
two men arrested on a Greyhound bus in Florida with bricks of cocaine strapped to
their legs.
The court was more sympathetic to Kennedy D. Kirk
of New Orleans, who was convicted and sentenced
to 15 years after police said a search turned up a vial
of drugs in his pants.
"The police had neither an arrest warrant for (Kirk),
nor a search warrant for (Kirk's) apartment, when
they entered his home, arrested him and searched
him," the Supreme Court said in an unsigned ruling.
Justices, who ruled without hearing arguments, said
police must prove "exigent circumstances" before
crossing the "firm line at the entrance to the house"
without a warrant.
Bush administration did well before
high court
The Bush administration had a busy and successful
year at the Supreme Court, according to a
self-evaluation provided to reporters.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson won eight of the eight cases he argued during the
nine-month term that ended last week.
As the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, he gets to pick the cases he will
personally handle.
Overall, the government won 54 cases and lost 11, according to its record-keeping.
The report also said the administration participated in more of the argued cases this
year than in any year over the past decade -- 83 percent.
"The government and the Office of Solicitor General had a remarkably successful
year," said the report, circulated for "background guidance."
Souter airs frustrations over benefits cases
There's a dirty word at the Supreme Court, one dreaded by justices, their staffs and
reporters -- ERISA.
Year after year the court has to mediate disputes over the complicated employee
benefits law. Many cases involve huge amounts of money and issues of major
public interest. And they come down to an interpretation of fuzzy language
Congress used in 1974 in creating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Justice David H. Souter let some frustration spill over into his opinion in an ERISA
case last month. The law "seems simultaneously to pre-empt everything and hardly
anything," he said.
Souter noted a long line of ERISA cases that had tied up the court's time. Just last
month justices chose another case involving the law to be argued next year.
"There are certain classes of cases that judges despise; there's no nice, clean
answer that will allow the cases to be easily settled. It's important enough that it
keeps coming back to them," said Stanford University law professor Hank Greely.
ERISA has been a "continuing toothache" for judges, he said. "Every year they
seem to get more cavities."
They have power, but they're no oracles
Justice Stephen Breyer was introduced during a recent appearance as an oracle --
to his apparent dismay.
An oracle is a person believed to be in communication with a deity, or someone
with great knowledge and wisdom.
Breyer told the event sponsored by the Inter American Press Association that the
Supreme Court members were not quite at that level.
"Believe me, we are not oracles. We are easily capable of making mistakes. We
hope each one of the nine of us, when we're there, that our mistakes will not be too
terrible," he said. |
