Court urged to give police more power to search

WASHINGTON -- Police should be given wider authority to search convicts' homes, the Bush administration argued Tuesday in a case that presented the Supreme Court with its first broad civil liberties question since Sept. 11.

At issue is Americans' right to privacy in their homes -- without unreasonable searches -- even if they are on parole or probation.

In California, a person on probation signs a blanket agreement giving any police officer permission to search his home or car without a warrant or probable cause. The federal government backs the practice.

The Supreme Court ruling eventually could affect some of the 4.4 million convicts on probation or parole nationwide, along with their families or roommates.

"A probationer's home, like anyone else's house, is protected," said public defender Hilary A. Fox, who represents a man accused of setting a fire that knocked out telephone service to an airport.

Mark James Knights was on probation for a misdemeanor drug charge in 1998 when Pacific Gas & Electric Co. was vandalized. Because Knights had been disputing an unpaid bill, police woke him and his girlfriend early one morning for a surprise search. They found a detonation cord, chemicals and books about bomb-making.

Knights' trial for the fire is on hold while the court decides the issue.

Little apparent sympathy

Malcolm L. Stewart, arguing for the Bush administration, said authorities need leeway to protect the public from people who could be more likely to engage in other crimes.

Justices seemed to have little sympathy for Knights.

"This is terribly important that you provide a deterrent to commit other crimes," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. "With the benefit of hindsight, it looks like a perfectly reasonable search."

But Justice David H. Souter said he was unaware of a precedent that "because someone has been convicted, the state can limit Bill of Rights entitlements."

The federal government contends that an early release is a privilege and that those not wishing to waive their privacy rights can remain behind bars.