Supreme Court Orders Review of Police Search

WASHINGTON — In a rare victory for convicted drug dealers and other criminals, the Supreme Court told federal appellate judges Monday to take a fresh look at cases raising claims that police overstepped their bounds in searching for evidence.

On an 8-1 vote, the high court sided with two Latino men from California who came under police surveillance in Milwaukee simply because they were driving an old car with California licenses plates and had checked into a motel late at night.

One judge called this surveillance method “little better than a dragnet for Hispanics.”

Nonetheless, two lower courts upheld the cocaine trafficking convictions of the two men and rejected claims that their 4th Amendment rights were violated when they were stopped and their car searched without a warrant.

Reversing those decisions, the Supreme Court told a federal appeals court in Chicago to reconsider the case and to give it an “independent review.” On appeal, the judges should carefully consider whether the police had a reasonable basis for stopping the individuals in the first place, the court said.

A lawyer who represented one of the two men called Tuesday’s ruling a significant procedural victory.

“This will affect thousands of cases every year, and it means they will be reviewed with a fresh eye,” said Robert G. LeBell, a Milwaukee attorney.

However, a former prosecutor said that the ruling will not necessarily result in freeing many convicted criminals. “This will encourage more appeals . . . but I don’t know that it will make much difference in the end,” said Peter G. Isakoff, a Washington attorney, who urged the court to uphold the original conviction.

The 4th Amendment bars “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government but the line between legal and illegal police conduct is not always clear.

Trial judges are usually reluctant to throw out powerful evidence against a defendant based on an after-the-fact claim that the search was unreasonable.

Tuesday’s decision in Ornelas vs. United States, 95-5257, concerns whether appellate judges should defer to an initial ruling by the trial judge or instead review the matter with a fresh eye.

Milwaukee police testified that they had questioned the two men, Saul and Ismael Ornelas, because they were driving a 1981 Oldsmobile with plates from California, a “source state” for illegal drugs. Older cars are favored by drug dealers, they said, because it is easier to hide things in them. One officer spotted a loose armrest and found cocaine hidden behind it.

A federal judge rejected the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that police had a “reasonable suspicion” to suspect the two were engaged in criminal activity and “probable cause” to expect to find drugs in the car. Agreeing, the U.S. appeals court said it would defer to the judge’s conclusions.

“We think independent review of these ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause” is required to preserve a uniform body of law, wrote Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for the court.

Only Justice Antonin Scalia dissented.

The court also agreed to decide whether states can bar candidates from running under the banner of two parties. Minnesota, California and most other states say that candidates can run on only one party’s ticket but a federal appeals court in St. Louis said that those laws are unconstitutional. The case (McKenna vs. Twin Cities New Party, 95-1608) will be argued in the fall.