home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990
/
1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso
/
time
/
091889
/
09188900.052
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1990-09-17
|
7KB
|
113 lines
NATION, Page 28A Threat to Freedom?Civil liberties could be a casualty of Bush's war on drugs
When George Bush outlined his new antidrug strategy last week,
he put the stress on bringing home the war on narcotics. Zeroing
in on domestic drug consumption, the President's battle plan called
for harsher penalties for users and stepped-up law enforcement. In
Canton, Ohio, officials have already taken a step in that
direction. Last month the city council passed a law making it a
crime for anyone to be in any area, including the city's public
parks, where drugs or drug paraphernalia are being sold. There was
just one problem: people merely passing through a park where drug
sales were taking place could be subject to arrest.
"The real victim (in the drug war) is going to be the
constitutional rights of the majority of citizens," complains
Harvey Gittler, executive director of Ohio's A.C.L.U. In response
to the objections of civil libertarians, the Canton council is
meeting this week to scale back its new ordinance. But there are
indications that Americans are in a mood to fight drugs, even if
that means sacrificing some constitutional guarantees. In a
Washington Post-ABC News poll last week, 62% of those questioned
said they would be willing to give up "a few of the freedoms we
have in this country" to reduce illegal drug use significantly.
Majorities said they favored mandatory drug tests for all citizens,
police searches of the homes of suspected drug dealers without a
court order, and random police checks of cars on the highway.
Though Bush added little that is new to the roster of antidrug
strategies, some of the approaches he emphasized are likely to fuel
further debate over whether constitutional guarantees will be a
casualty of the war against drugs. A decade of stepped-up antidrug
efforts has already left its mark on American law and life.
Powerful state and federal forfeiture laws permit the confiscation
before trial of virtually any kind of property remotely involved
in or "intended for use" in drug transactions. Drug-sniffing dogs
search hallways in Houston public schools. Public housing officials
in some cities have evicted the families of suspected drug users.
Already, 43% of all businesses with 1,000 employees or more have
drug-testing programs.
In his speech last week, Bush called for even more drug
testing. But some legal scholars complain that random drug testing
of all employees, whether or not they are suspected of using
illegal substances, disregards the venerable notion of "probable
cause" -- that a search can be triggered only by a well-founded
suspicion of criminal action by a particular individual. "When you
start saying a search satisfies the Fourth Amendment even though
it's not based on any focused suspicion at all, you've ripped the
heart out of the Fourth Amendment," insists University of Michigan
law professor Yale Kamisar.
During its most recent term, the Supreme Court for the first
time outlined the situations in which workplace drug testing would
be permissible. The court approved testing for railway workers
involved in major accidents and for customs employees seeking jobs
that involve narcotics interdiction or require them to carry a gun.
Some civil libertarians were encouraged by the fact that the
rulings were narrowly crafted to apply only to well-defined groups
of workers, leaving open the possibility that the court would not
approve more wide-ranging testing.
But some legal experts have also begun to talk about an
emerging "drug exception" to the Fourth Amendment ban on
unreasonable searches and seizures -- a willingness by courts,
where drugs are concerned, to permit searches they might otherwise
disallow. In recent years, for example, the Supreme Court has
allowed expanded use of so-called drug-courier profiles --
descriptions of a smuggler's characteristic behavior and appearance
-- as a basis upon which to stop and question suspects, despite
complaints that such profiles give police license to stop blacks
and Hispanics. It has also upheld the right of police to inspect
a drug suspect's garbage without a warrant. "There is a sense that
what they're dealing with is the rights of drug dealers," says UCLA
law professor Peter Arenella. "But they're dealing in all our
rights."
Law-enforcement officials maintain that fears of rampant
intrusions into privacy are exaggerated. "Concern that police or
federal agents will be searching everybody's trash is kind of
ridiculous," says Federal District Judge Robert Bonner, former U.S.
Attorney in Los Angeles. Administration drug czar William Bennett
says he was "infuriated" by criticisms last week that the
Administration's program relied too heavily on law enforcement at
the expense of treatment. Complains Bennett: "If anything like this
kind of situation were going on in the suburbs, residents would
raise holy hell and say, `Call in the police!' But if we're talking
about the inner city, people are saying, `Well, this sounds
repressive.'"
Sometimes the push and pull between tough tactics and
constitutional requirements result in a compromise. For years, drug
dealers had made Chicago's public housing projects their roosting
ground, selling from apartments and raking the hallways with
gunfire during turf wars. Last September the Chicago Housing
Authority launched "Operation Clean Sweep." Housing authority
agents and police made surprise apartment visits looking for
unauthorized residents, many of them alleged drug dealers who had
moved in with girlfriends. But some inspectors tended to treat
tenants like students in a dormitory, demanding that visitors leave
by midnight and nosing through drawers, in effect conducting
searches without a warrant.
A suit filed by the A.C.L.U. resulted last month in a
modification of those tactics. Visitors may now obtain guest cards
allowing them to stay in a building for as long as two weeks. And
housing agents and police have agreed to stop house and body
searches. But the sweeps go on, to the relief of tenants. "It's so
much better since the sweeps," says Delores Wilson, president of
a tenants group. "Before, you could hear machine-gun fire all
during the day." The danger is that as they search for a way out
of the drug crisis, many other Americans would settle for a similar
trade-off: less freedom for more security.