|Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback||
Bush Campaign Challenges Validity of Hand CountsAired November 28, 2000 - 1:41 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, today marks the deadline for the Bush and Gore attorneys to file initial briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court. George W. Bush is challenging the validity of hand recounts in Florida and joining with us that story, CNN's Charles Bierbauer in Washington outside the Supreme Court -- Charles.
CHARLES BIERBAUER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Natalie, we're waiting. Those briefs are due here at the Supreme Court at 4:00 this afternoon. And of course, the justices and we as well will want to see just how these arguments are laid out. They're fairly clear in the general sense that the Bush camp, the Bush lawyers, will say that the Florida State Supreme Court usurped the role of the legislature, overreached, and in effect wrote new law by extending the time frame for recounting the votes, whereas the Gore campaign lawyers will say that, no, they were just interpreting existing law and that was OK. They will also have to respond to the question posed by the justices, which was, tell them how their overruling of the Florida Supreme Court would have an impact on the proceedings down in Florida. They want to have a better sense of what the consequences will be when they hear the arguments on Friday. So, that's what we are waiting for, rather patiently, calmly, outside the Supreme Court where the tension really won't build until Friday, I suspect -- Natalie.
ALLEN: And lest we think this presidential election is the only thing on the justices' plate, we hear they have made some other decisions today. Why don't you tell us about that?
BIERBAUER: Yes, indeed. The justices have other jobs to do other than wait for these brief to come in. In fact, this morning they issued a ruling in a case heard earlier this term and in essence said that the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches, also precludes using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks and random searches. A little background on this case which came to the court from the city of Indianapolis.
BIERBAUER (voice-over): When Indianapolis police set up roadblocks, they warned that they are using the narcotics and using drug-sniffing dogs. Joel Palmer, 19 at the time, protested.
JOEL PALMER, SUED INDIANAPOLIS: I told them they couldn't search me, said I wasn't giving up my rights. They went through my pockets. They stuck the dog inside my car. BIERBAUER: Palmer says he was profiled. The city says that could not have happened.
SCOTT CHINN, ATTORNEY FOR INDIANAPOLIS: The officers stopped a sequence of cars in a row. Five to 10 cars in a row and have no discretion to pick one car off of the roadway and stick into the sequence.
UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICER: We're conducting a sobriety check- point.
BIERBAUER: The Supreme Court has previously held sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. A drunk driver is a hazard to public safety.
BIERBAUER: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the 6-3 majority, noted that if the Court were to authorize these drug checkpoints, law enforcement would be able to authorize checkpoints for just about any purpose it chose.
Charles Bierbauer, CNN, the Supreme Court.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|Back to the top||
© 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.|
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.