NEWSBYJACQUELINE DOWD

A homeless shelter is a person's home, and homeless citizens are entitled to the same privacy protection as those in our country who have housing, a Massachusetts court has ruled.

The case resulted from the prosecution of a 16-year-old boy based on evidence obtained by police during a search of the room he shared with his mother at the Roxbury Multi-Service Center Family House Shelter in March 2006. After the shelter director unlocked the door, the officers found a loaded Glock .40-caliber gun.

The boy was charged with delinquency, but a juvenile court judge threw out the evidence. Prosecutors appealed.

In finding that the search violated the rights of the shelter's occupants, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected the idea that residents of transitional housing have lesser rights to privacy.

"The room that the juvenile and his mother shared at the shelter was a transitional living space, but it was nonetheless their home," the court said, ruling against the prosecutors. Because they -- like any other Americans -- had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their home, it couldn't be searched without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment provides that every person has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures in his home. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that hotel patrons and boarding house tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their rooms; even a guest who stays one night in a friend's home (with or without a key) has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host's home.

The doggie bag from your restaurant dinner could be tomorrow's lunch. But then you see someone on the street who needs that meal more than you do. So you hand it over (with a smile) and continue on your way, maybe feeling a little better about yourself.

Then a police officer stops you and hands you a $300 ticket.

That's what could happen if a city ordinance being considered in Miami is enacted into law.

The Miami City Commission is considering a proposal that would prohibit "unauthorized" people and groups from sharing food with homeless people in the downtown area.

Proponents say the ordinance will cut down on litter and ensure the safety of the food that homeless people eat.

Cut down on litter? Give me a break. Beyond the silliness of that, I'll put my lawyer hat on and tell you that the Supreme Court has ruled that the governmental interest in preventing litter was insufficient to justify an ordinance that would have prohibited individuals from handing out literature to those willing to receive it. That ordinance violated the First Amendment right to free speech. (The case is Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington). Of course, a city has the power to punish individuals who throw leaflets (or food wrappers) on the ground, rather than those who hand them out.

Ensure the safety of food given to hungry people? That's even sillier.

Punishing people who try to help homeless people is a new tactic adopted in