IN BELL V. WOLFISH THE COURT OVERTURNED THE RULING OF TWO LOWER COURTS THAT RESTRICTIVE TREATMENT OF PRETRIAL DETAINEES BY A FEDERAL JAIL IN NEW YORK CITY HAD VIOLATED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THIS DECISION ALLOWS POLICE TO TREAT SUSPECTS AS IF THEY WERE GUILTY AND COULD ALTER INTERPRETATIONS OF MANY UNCLEAR AREAS INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF DUE PROCESS, INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST THOSE OF THE STATE AND A COURT MAY PERMIT AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE SEARCHED ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION. WHEN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS REMOVED, HOWEVER, THE SCALES ARE TIPPED IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE. THE NEW INTERPRETATION COULD ALSO LOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR EVIDENCE TO PROVE PROBABLE CAUSE. MANY PEOPLE WOULD ACCEPT INCREASED POLICE POWERS IN LOWER CLASS CRIMINAL CASES, BUT WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THEY WERE APPLIED TO CASES OF DRUG ABUSE OR CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCACY INVOLVING THE MIDDLE CLASS. IN REALITY THE FACTUAL PRESUMPTION OF GUILT BY POLICE COEXISTS WITH THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BUT THE REMOVAL OF THE LATTER RESTRAINT COULD ENCOURAGE POLICE BRUTALITY AND OTHER ILLEGAL PRACTICES. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (MJM)