When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they gave us a foundation upon which the rule of law was built. That foundation ensures that no matter who might be in control of the government at any given time, our nation will always be firmly anchored in the law.

The framers of the Constitution, with British rule still fresh in their memories, included provisions in the Constitution that were based on what they knew they didn't like about what the British did. It was the British disregard for personal liberty, for instance, that gave rise to the Fourth Amendment.

Back when the British army occupied the colonies, officials of the kind, on the authority of a permanent blanket warrant, could search any home, anytime, for any reason. This assault on personal privacy was one of the reasons colonists decided to declare independence.

In order to protect personal privacy in the new United States of America, the Fourth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is the one that prohibits unlawful search and seizure by government officials. It is because of this amendment that the police need a search warrant to enter your home.

The Fourth Amendment was created to hold at bay unfettered government authority to search innocent citizens and their homes. But for a government to perform its law enforcement duties, it needs the ability to search criminals and their lairs. And so the courts have been walking a tightrope ever since, trying to balance the legitimate law enforcement needs of the government and have the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Early this month, the Supreme Court of Ohio continued that high-wire act with a case that pitted the Fourth Amendment against the scourge of modern society - cocaine.

On Feb. 26, 1996, a Cleveland police detective obtained a search warrant to enter an apartment that he believed was the site of cocaine sales. Armed with a warrant that authorized a search of the "premises, its curtilage, common and storage ares and any person present therein," Detective Ehrbar and the police entered the apartment, seized contraband and arrested the man identified as the seller of the cocaine.

Five days later, the detective's partner asked for another search warrant for the same apartment because he had received word that cocaine was still being sold there. The second warrant said basically the same thing as the first.

In court, the suspect tried to suppress the evidence against him, claiming that the police had conducted a general exploratory search, which violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Despite the testimony of the detective that the suspect was searched on authority of the warrant, the trial court granted the suspect's motion to suppress the evidence.

The court of appeals didn't agree with the trial court's judgement or the other appellate court decision and reversed the ruling. That's when the case came before us. It was for us to decide if the warrant which granted the authority to search the suspect fit into the confines of the Fourth Amendment. By a seven-to-zero vote, we said that the warrant did not violate the suspect's constitutional protections.

The Fourth Amendment carries a "particularity" requirement, which says that a search warrant has to be "supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the palace to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So a warrant authorizing an "all persons" search - even though it doesn't particularly describe the place or persons to be searched - does not necessarily violate the "particularity requirement of the amendment."

The Fourth Amendment can be pretty confounding sometimes because it seems that, more often than not, it's the criminal element that ends up hiding behind its protections. We all want to nail drug dealers and shut down crack houses, but we should never forget that the Fourth Amendment is there as an important check to protect us all from unrestrained government authority set loose on the land.

Pfeifer is an Ohio Supreme Court justice. Turnstiles are written by OU staff, students and Athens community members. They should be about 700 words, typed and double spaced. They appear Tuesday through Friday/ You may submit turnstiles to Sarah Wigdalski at The Post or send them by e-mail to post@oak.cats.ohiou.edu.