Shame on the Indiana Supreme Court

On March 5, 2002 the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on two cases involving Article I, section 11 of our state Constitution. This section, nearly identical to the Fourth Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized."

One case involved the police practice of setting up road blocks to check randomly selected drivers for drunk driving. The other questioned the power of public schools to require random drug testing of students who participate in extracurricular activities. The Indiana Appeals Court had decided in 2000 that both searches violated the Indiana Constitution. The state Supreme Court overruled the Appeals Court in both cases.

Drug abuse and drunk driving are serious problems in every state, including Indiana. As often happens, these problems tempt authorities to push the limits of state power to deal with them. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that such efforts stay within the bounds of law, especially the fundamental law embodied in the Constitution.

As fervently as the Indiana State Police, school boards, and the justices of the Indiana Supreme Court may wish otherwise, the words of Article I, Section 11 send a clear message: unreasonable searches are against the law. A reasonable search is defined as one for which there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be uncovered by the search, and for which a warrant has been issued. Random searches for any purpose are by this definition unreasonable. Any other interpretation of this section is an insult to our intelligence.

In their explanation of the decisions in these cases, the justices considered all kinds of factors: the importance of preventing drug abuse and drunk driving; the limited rights of minors in a school setting; most of all, the precedents established by prior rulings. There was very little discussion of the single most important factor: the actual words of the Constitution.

If the words of the Constitution can be ignored in favor of the opinions of five Supreme Court justices, our state has a government of men rather than laws. Why have a written constitution if the written words may be ignored whenever it is expedient for solving a particular problem?

I think the willful misinterpretation of the Indiana Constitution by our Supreme Court is a violation of their oath of office "to support the Constitution of this State…" That would be a crime, for which the justices could be impeached under Article VI, Section 7. If I thought it had a chance of succeeding, I would suggest removing all five and replacing them with judges from the Appeals Court.

The state legislature isn't going to impeach the Indiana Supreme Court, and none of the justices are up for re-approval by the electorate any time soon; so I propose another course of action. The Indiana Senate and House should pass legislation to reinforce the obvious meaning of Article I, Section 11. It should be made a felony to conduct any warrantless search, including random drug tests and random sobriety checks.

I was proud of Indiana when our Appellate Court made the rulings that were recently shot down by the Supreme Court. Today I'm embarrassed by the actions of those five justices. Shame on the Indiana Supreme Court.