Supreme Court ruling weakens restrictions on search and seizure

Frontiersman editorial board

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued a 6-2 decision that will broaden police search powers. The ruling related to an Illinois case in which police used a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop - even though there was no probable cause to search the driver's car for drugs. Police stopped the driver for exceeding the speed limit by six miles per hour. Because he seemed nervous, the drug dog was brought up to sniff the car, and drugs were found in the car.

The court found that the search intrusion was minimal, because the dog performed its search from outside the car. Some will argue that as long as you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to any expansion of police search powers. The driver possessed illegal drugs, so, in retrospect, the search appears to be perfectly reasonable.

The problem is that protections against unreasonable search and seizure only work when they are strictly applied, and when the burden is upon law enforcement, not upon average citizens.

The standard that was originally established was one of probable cause. One important reason for that is to prevent law enforcement officials from using a weak pretext to initiate a search for a more significant crime. In the Illinois case, there is no reason to believe the police stopped the driver for anything other than speeding.

With a more liberal interpretation of the search restrictions, though, police could use simple traffic violations as a pretext to initiate random searches. It opens the door to profiling and potential harassment. There is confusion over this issue, especially following the attacks of 9/11. The USA Patriot Act was one response, and it is part of a trend toward reduced civil rights for all Americans. This Supreme Court ruling could be a sign that the nation's attitude has been radically changed by the threat of terrorism.

It's important to remember that restrictions against illegal search and seizure are intended to protect innocent citizens - not guilty ones. Though some criminals benefit from those restrictions, the benefit to liberty is clearly worth the inconvenience. A state with unlimited police powers cannot claim to be devoted to individual rights and liberty. Perhaps the cause has been the threat of terrorism, but the result has been a weakening of civil rights. It's time to rein in our fears

and insist upon the protection of our

civil rights.