High Court's Cloudy Outlook on Civil Liberties

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent rulings on civil liberties have steadfastly avoided the biggest principles, but instead have focused on relatively minor issues unlikely to have much impact on most Americans. The court has gotten it more right than wrong, but even when they are right, the justices have rarely offered clear guidelines on where the private individual's rights begin and where the government's powers end.

For instance, the court recently issued two noteworthy opinions involving police searches. In Bailey v. United States, the court was asked a simple question: What are the geographic limitations on a search warrant? In this case, Long Island, N.Y., police officers had a warrant to search a parolee's apartment. When authorities search an occupied residence, they typically detain the subject of the warrant while the search takes place.

In this case, Chulon Bailey didn't know that his apartment was about to be searched, and he drove away for the evening. The police stopped and detained him a distance from his home. The authorities argued that, in essence, a search warrant doesn't apply merely to the premises being search but can be used to stop a person pretty much anywhere. The court, in a 6-3 decision, didn't buy that police argument. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled, sensibly, that a search warrant "must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched."

In the second case, a Florida police officer pulled over a driver.

Because the driver seemed nervous, the officer used a dog to sniff for drugs. The result was a search of the vehicle that revealed methamphetamine-manufacturing paraphernalia — items that the dog was not trained to sniff out.

The Florida Supreme Court threw out the arrest on that basis, but the U.S. Supreme Court decided unanimously that police have the widest latitude to use drug-sniffing dogs.

The first case was a wise decision, the second one unwise, given that it will now give officials the widest-possible latitude to use dogs in every manner of search, and they will not have to worry too much about how accurate the findings or how well-trained the dogs may be.

In a free society, it is of the utmost importance that police have probable cause to search people and cannot simply go on fishing expeditions, using dogs or anything else. Clearly, the divided court is uncertain how to proceed in these areas, which is disturbing given that the court's supreme role is to make judgments on cases involving our basic liberties.

Our nation is facing serious challenges to civil liberties, given federal anti-terrorism efforts, increased federal plans for a so-called Internet "kill switch," the FBI's push to gain broader access to our financial data and the continued expansion of government into many areas of our personal lives (i.e., health care).

As local authorities eagerly embrace the use of military-style drones to monitor our communities, we're left hoping that the court soon gains some clarity and some courage.

REPRINTED FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM