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