Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 10, 1998)
CONTACTING US NEWSROOM: ADDRESS: (541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL: P.O. BOX3159 ode@oregon. uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403 ONLINE EOITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode EDITOR IN CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITORS Doug Irving Chris Kenning AN EMERALD EDITORIAL Police are gaining increasing power to search property at the cost of civil liverties It’s 2 a.m. You’ve been asleep for about an hour after anoth er long night of studying. Suddenly, you hear a shat tering of glass and shouting as several shadowy figures race into your home. Half-asleep and completely confused, you reach for some thing to protect yourself—agun, knife, baseball bat or even a heavy lamp. At that moment, a bright light is flashed in your eyes, someone shouts, "Police!” and before you can react, you are jj|||Jlj shot several times oKr and killed. Not likely? Not about to happen to you, a law- \ ' abiding citizen who would '9m never attract police attention in the first place? Perhaps. But, according to the Supreme Court, perfectly legal. A recent court decision over turned a 9th Circuit Court of Ap peals ruling that police must an nounce their presence before breaking property — such as kick ing down a door or breaking a locked window — in order to con duct a warranted search. The Supreme Court has already ruled that police can enter a home unannounced, if they have a war rant, when they suspect the lives of officers might be in danger, the suspect could destroy evidence or the suspect could escape. Now those concerns are weighed equally regardless of whether the police need to destroy property in order to enter the premises. While police concerns about safety and the legitimacy of their investigations make sense, they need to be balanced against the necessary rights of the individual. Unfortunately, recent police ac tions and court decisions have suggested the balance is over whelmingly skewed. The 9th Circuit Court’s reason ing was, in part, that police jeop ardized their own safety and the safety of those being searched by breaking into a home unan nounced. This concern for safety is only one of the reasons we wor ry about giving police too much freedom in determining the man ner their search should take. Fourth Amendment provisions requiring searches be warranted were created to prevent police from having undue power over the lives of private citizens. One important aspect of these provi sions is that the courts, and not the police, approve warrants. Unfortunately, the courts are not in a position to control the way in which the warrant is served. Perhaps the Supreme Court’s ruling would be more ac ceptable if it required police to ob tain court approval of forced en try. As it stands now, however, police discretion has been ex panded without judicial interfer ence and at the cost of personal liberties. Too many people are willing to dismiss the ongoing breakdown of civil liberties protections because “the police are the good guys, and the criminals are the bad guys.” By this logic, criminals are some how less entitled to constitutional protections. There are several problems with this reasoning. Above all else, few are more in need of their rights than accused criminals, who face a huge number of preju dices and social stigmas. Moreover, just because a per son’s home is about to be searched doesn't mean they are a criminal. —— CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald In addition to the presumption of innocence that still theoretically exists in our system, many people are falsely accused of crimes by the police. For example, the search that led to the recent Supreme Court decision was in tended to locate a fugitive who was not, in fact, residing within the searched home. Police frequently base searches upon less than solid evidence. When seeking a warrant, investi gators need only present reasons for issuance, regardless of any contradictory information they might have obtained. While police do usually act in the interest of societal safety, there is a mound of empirical evi dence that this is not always the case. Recent headlines have de clared numerous cases of police brutality across the nation. Racism has long been considered a factor in unequal treatment of citizens by some police forces. And some large, urban police agencies have attracted attention from human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, which issued a scathing report on the Los Angeles Police Department. Searches in particular have at traded recent criticism for being unjust. Eric Blumenson and Eva Nilsen wrote a lengthy indictment of police confiscation procedures in drug cases in the March 9 Na tion. According to the authors, an increasing reliance upon mon ey generated from confiscating drug-related property has led to several problems. These inequities have included, according to Blumenson and Nilsen, “distorted law-enforce ment priorities," “unjust treat ment" and “police lawlessness." The authors argue that law en forcement is increasingly em phasizing anti-drug laws and ar rest procedures that maximize the potential for confiscation of prop erty, often at the cost of just treat ment, due process and fair war rant procedures. In one particular case, a mas sive police team descended upon the $5 million ranch of Donald Scott based upon a claim by an in formant that Scott was growing marijuana. According to Blumen son and Nilsen, the police were completely unable to corroborate the claim, yet they proceeded to seek a warrant and conduct an ex tensive search. Remember the “unlikely” sce nario from the beginning of this editorial? When police burst into Scott’s home, they found him holding a gun out of fear and con fusion. Scott was shot twice in the chest and killed. Guess what. Police found no marijuana plants or other drugs or related paraphernalia. In a report by the Ventura County district attorney, officials concluded that the police had act ed irresponsibly, basing the war rant and search itself upon what The Nation writers termed “a lack of credible evidence.” Finally, the report concluded the search had been partly inspired by a desire to confiscate the ranch. So, perhaps your civil rights aren’t in danger from recent at tacks on fair search procedures. Perhaps the scenario of a late night raid isn’t likely. But the rea son may not be that you are a law abiding citizen, but that you don’t own an expensive enough home. If that doesn’t make you value the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution as a whole, perhaps nothing will. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Re sponses may be sent to ode@ore gon.uoregon.edu. CORRECTION The photo shown on the cover of the “Better Minds and Bodies” supplement (ODE, March 4) and the photo accompanying the story “Brav ing the Rapids” should have been credited to oruce Mason ot me uuiaoor program, i ne Emerald regrets the oversight. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1 God cherishes all We wish to proclaim Barry Williams does not speak for all Christians (ODE, Feb. 25). As members of the Reconciling Ministry at the Wesley Foundation, we seek to make our campus ministry a welcoming environment — an open community where all can gather in fel lowship and worship. As a reconciling ministry, we offer a spiritual home and safe place for all members of the campus community. We are called by God to speak out with welcoming voices to gay, lesbian and bi sexual people. Working together, we at tempt to create an open, accepting and non-judgmental atmosphere for all peo ple. To say God feels “fierce, burning anger" toward the lesbian, gay and bisexual com munity goes against the fundamental prin ciples of our faith. We believe in a God that loves and cherishes all people. Janet Cromwell Pastor, Wesley Foundation and three cosigners Princeton plays ‘right’ This is in response to Joel Hood’s opin ion on the Princeton men’s basketball team (ODE, March 5). Hood has every thing wrong, and I cannot believe that someone who is a true basketball fan can find fault with the way Princeton plays. Princeton portrays everything that is right with basketball. They play fundamental basketball. They play the “right” way. If you cannot appreciate a nice bank shot, bounce pass or back door cut, then I don’t know what you’re looking for. Maybe you are a fan of very talented athletes who have no discipline, no fun damentals and maybe even choke their coaches. If so, you can sit home and watch the second round of the tourna ment on TV with UCLA. Scott Pstton Psychology
