Supreme Court -- Cigarette Maker Loses Ruling On Joe Camel Ads

WASHINGTON - It may not be the straw that broke Joe Camel's back, but the Supreme Court today refused to kill a lawsuit that accuses a cigarette maker of using the suave cartoon character to entice children to smoke.

The justices, without comment, turned away arguments by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that federal law preempts any such proceeding in a California state court.

Reynolds, which manufactures Camels cigarettes, was sued by San Francisco lawyer Janet Mangini in 1992, two years after she learned of a report that said Joe Camel was as familiar to children as Mickey Mouse.

She sued in state court, alleging that Reynolds, a subsidiary of RJR Nabisco Inc., had violated a California law barring unfair business practices. Mangini sought a ban on Joe Camel ads and a company-financed campaign advising children that "smoking is not cool."

A trial judge threw out the lawsuit, ruling that state regulation of smoking was blocked by a federal law, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

A state appeals court reinstated Mangini's lawsuit, and its ruling was upheld by the California Supreme Court last June.

The state court did not rule that the Joe Camel campaign is aimed at minors, an allegation Reynolds denies. The issue was left for resolution at a trial.

The justices in 1992 ruled that cigarette makers may be sued under state laws for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking. The case acted on today is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco vs. Mangini, 94-571.

In other action, the court:

-- Agreed to decide whether the Constitution requires police with court warrants to knock and announce themselves before entering a home to conduct a search.

At issue is whether the "knock-and-announce" rules in virtually all the states and for federal law enforcement agents are required by the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.

The justices said they will use an Arkansas case to clarify a point of the law left ambiguous by a splintered 1963 high court ruling.

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that its state rule does not apply when police obtain a court warrant to search for evidence of suspected drug trafficking.

The state court ruling upheld the marijuana-related conviction of Sharlene Wilson, whose home in Hot Spring County was searched Dec. 31, 1992, after police with a court warrant walked in without first giving notice of their presence.

The case is Wilson vs. Arkansas, 94-5707. -- Agreed to use an Oregon case to decide whether school districts can require student athletes to undergo drug testing.

The court said it will hear the Vernonia School District's argument that mandatory drug testing "may be the only effective way to deal with a drug-use epidemic among school children."

All students who signed up for interscholastic sports were required to be tested at the beginning of the season and could be selected randomly for additional testing during the sports season.

James Acton tried out for the football team when he was a seventh-grader in fall 1991, but he was suspended after he refused to be tested for drugs.

His parents, Wayne and Judy Acton, sued the school district in federal court. Their lawsuit said the policy violated James' right, under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, to be free from unreasonable searches.

A federal judge ruled against the Actons, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The school district's appeal relied heavily on a 1985 Supreme Court ruling that said the need to maintain order in public schools can justify less Fourth Amendment protection for students.

But the Actons' lawyers said school officials did not prove drug use was a major problem.

The case is Vernonia School District vs. Acton, 94-590.