Limits on searches

The U.S. Supreme Court strengthened the Fourth Amendment and delivered a slap to the war on drugs Tuesday when it put new limits on the authority of police to search vehicles immediately following the arrest of a suspect.

The ruling upheld decisions by Arizona courts to overturn the criminal convictions of Rodney J. Gant. After being arrested in 1999 for driving on a suspended license, Gant was placed in the back of a patrol car. He watched Tucson police perform a warrantless search on his vehicle and remove cocaine, drug paraphernalia and a gun.

He was sentenced to three years in prison.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that because Gant was handcuffed and unable to access his vehicle, officers had no reason to fear for their safety and there was no risk of evidence being destroyed. Therefore, they should have obtained a search warrant, the court decided.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said police may conduct vehicle searches without a warrant, but only if officers have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence related to the reason for the arrest, or if a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle can still reach inside the automobile.

The founders were careful to enshrine the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in the Bill of Rights because they recognized the tyranny of an unrestrained government. Americans are supposed to enjoy the presumption of innocence in criminal matters; the state must not be allowed to inspect our property on a whim, as though we're all guilty of something.

But that's precisely the argument Arizona authorities made in defense of Tucson police, a position that was supported by the Bush administration and 25 other states. They wanted Gant's conviction upheld because they put law enforcement interests ahead of citizens' privacy concerns, arguing against the imposition of a "dangerous and unworkable test" that would confuse and complicate police work.

The centrist Supreme Court had been sympathetic to such arguments in recent years. But this 5-4 decision was not divided along the court's traditional conservative and liberal lines, with rudderless Justice Anthony Kennedy breaking the tie. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Justice Stevens and fellow liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter in the majority.

Police seeking to examine or search personal property should be required to obtain warrants under almost all circumstances. The court should be applauded for reaching the proper conclusion in this case.