Illegal search

Back in 2002, an informant contacted police in Millard County, Utah, telling them he'd arranged to purchase drugs from one Afton Callahan.

Wearing a microphone provided by the police, who are thus shown to have planned ahead in at least some regards, the informant entered Callahan's trailer home, made the deal, and then signaled the officers. They entered the trailer and arrested Callahan in connection with methamphetamine possession.

But Utah courts ruled the evidence seized from Callahan's home could not be used against him. There was no emergency -- cops didn't rush in because they heard the screams of a kidnap victim; they had plenty of time to apply for a search warrant at their leisure. They entered the trailer and seized the drugs without any warrant whatsoever.

Callahan later sued the officers for violating his constitutional rights. But a federal judge ruled the officers could not be sued because there's a disagreement in the courts as to whether the search was legal.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver disagreed, quite properly holding the lawsuit could proceed because the officers should have known people have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in their homes, absent a warrant properly issued by a court based on a sworn affidavit showing "probably cause."

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will decide the case.

Good. This should be an easy one. The Fourth Amendment is clear -- no search or seizure without a warrant. And of course police are responsible to know and protect and defend Americans' rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The high court should -- must -- interpret the Fourth Amendment broadly in favor of the citizens' "right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," in the absence of '"warrants issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."