|
A Times EditorialFor freedom's sake
© St. Petersburg Times, published November 28, 1998 Police didn't bother obtaining a warrant prior to the seizure. When the vehicle was searched, two pieces of crack cocaine were found in the dashboard ashtray. The Florida Supreme Court threw out White's conviction in February, ruling that the drugs could not be used as evidence because the car's seizure was conducted illegally. Under state forfeiture law, police can confiscate any property they have probable cause to believe was used in the commission of a crime. The power is a broad one that has led to abuses, such as people losing cars and boats because a seed or two of marijuana is found in them. In Volusia County, sheriff's deputies routinely confiscated drivers' cash, alleging, often without proof, that the money would have been used to buy drugs. Too few checks already exist on police discretion to seize property; a warrant requirement is one of the few tools available to provide oversight. In the White case, the state argued that police don't need a warrant before seizing property under Florida's forfeiture statute. Not true, said the Florida Supreme Court; a state forfeiture statute cannot negate individual rights. "It would, indeed, be a Pyrrhic victory for the country if the government's imaginative use of that weapon (civil forfeiture) were to leave the Constitution itself a casualty," the Florida court said, quoting a federal appeals court. As to the state's claim of a so-called "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement, the court said it is a very narrow one that applies only to cars that are "readily mobile." The exception allows police to conduct a warrantless search of any readily operational vehicle they have probable cause to believe is carrying illegal goods. In those rare circumstances, a delay would mean the car could be cleaned out and driven away. Police also may seize cars without a warrant when the vehicles would otherwise have to be left in a public thoroughfare or in a hazardous location. Those conditions were not present in White's case. The car was parked safely, the car's owner was behind bars and the police had the car keys. This is an example of police trying to stretch a small, reasonable exception to the warrant requirement into a blanket rule. The wider these exceptions, the narrower become the protections for innocent people confronting state police power. The U.S. Supreme Court probably took the White case because the Florida Supreme Court's ruling conflicts with the findings of a number of other courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (which covers Florida), allowing warrantless seizures under forfeiture laws. But the Florida Supreme Court has read the Constitution correctly. Absent unusual circumstances, there is no reason for police to bypass the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. It is a small hurdle for police to jump, but the payoff for society's freedom is large.
Business |
Citrus |
Columnists |
Commentary |
|
warrantless seizure occurred in the case of Tyvessel White, who was arrested on an unrelated charge at his place of employment in Bay County. Later, White's automobile, which was safely parked in the lot of his employer, was seized by police because officers believed it had been used months earlier to deliver illegal drugs.
