
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, July 8, 1994                   TAG: 9407280007
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

SIMPSON SAGA

OK, WE'RE a bit embarrassed to admit it: Though tiring of the media frenzy, we remain as gripped as everyone else by the O.J. Simpson proceedings. At least, sort of like those who insist they read the articles in Playboy, we can emphasize the saga's educational value.

Instructive, it most certainly is. Last week, Americans learned a lot more about domestic violence than they'd known before. This week we've been treated to, amid the blood spots and mystery envelopes, an excellent lesson in Fourth Amendment law.

The judge presiding over Simpson's preliminary hearing ruled Thursday that police did nothing improper when they scaled a wall at Simpson's estate and collected evidence against him without first obtaining either permission or a search warrant.

This is not legal hair-splitting. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." It is a major source of Americans' fundamental right to privacy. The judge's decision in favor of the police in this case was, one hopes, a close call.

Her ruling will probably be appealed, but remains open to question in any case. Los Angeles officers, as a group not famous for prizing civil rights, entered Simpson's estate and investigated for some five hours before obtaining a warrant. As a defense lawyer pointed out, their written reports from that night did not refer to the same fears and observations that they recited, in court testimony, to justify their search.

The detectives testified that, after noticing a tiny spot of blood on Simpson's car, they worried someone might be hurt inside the house. They said they believed they faced an emergency situation, justifying climbing the wall. Yet they did not call for back-up, wear bullet-proof vests or draw their weapons as they normally would in an emergency situation.

Legal precedents generally allow police to enter a home without a warrant if they are pursuing a suspect, if they fear evidence may be destroyed, or if they believe someone is in jeopardy. The judge ruled that circumstances in this case allowed entry, and her decision is certainly not without basis. She noted, for example, that a gruesome double-murder had been committed just five minutes away from Simpson's house.

Still, one can wish these detectives had shown a bit more respect for the Fourth Amendment. And all Americans mesmerized by this lurid crime drama should appreciate that, had sufficient respect for the Fourth required suppression of the bloody glove and other damaging evidence, suppression would have been the right thing to do.

by CNB