Editorial: Unreasonable search will meet its demise

Friday, Dec. 11, 1998 | 12:26 p.m.

The National Association of Police Organizations argued that the inherent danger to the police from even routine traffic stops does justify these searches. "But while the concern for officer safety in this context may justify the 'minimal' additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search."

As the Sun's Jerry Fink reported Thursday, the impact on Nevada from the ruling is expected to be negligible since the state Supreme Court already places more restrictive limits on police searches. Nonetheless, if the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled for the police there likely would have been a push to permit full searches during routine traffic stops.

While police were on the losing end this time, the New York Times noted that police win most of the decisions involving encounters between officers and motorists. This week's ruling also will not affect previous decisions giving police the latitude to conduct other searches, such as when police plan to arrest a motorist.

It is reasonable to expect police officers to search cars if they believe evidence is being destroyed or if their lives are in danger. But the Iowa case offered neither of these instances. The court's ruling Tuesday gives motorists the protection they deserve from unconstitutional searches, helping preserve privacy rights.