[Jeanne Meserve, Cnn Anchor:] In the wake of that tobacco settlement, Massachusetts attorney general wanted restricted limits on advertising, and so, he pushed through a law which barred tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of parks, playgrounds and schools. And it is that law that is being argued about today at the Supreme Court. Charles Bierbauer is there with more -Charles.
[Charles Bierbauer, Cnn Correspondent:] Good morning, Jeanne. It's a First Amendment case that pits the interests of the tobacco companies in commercial speech versus the interest of the state of Massachusetts in this case. Here's why it is before the court today.
[Bierbauer, Cnn Correspondent:] Tobacco companies gave up their billboards following tobacco's 1998 settlement with the states.
[William Corr, Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids:] But they do advertise at retail stores, at convenience stores, where three out of four teenagers visit at least once a week.
[Bierbauer:] In 1999, Massachusetts sought to curb that advertising, too, with a statewide ban on outdoor tobacco ads, such as these, if placed within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds, and limits on the location of cigarettes and ads inside stores. The tobacco companies appealed to the Supreme Court.
[Mark Berlind, Phillip Morris Attorney:] All that's at stake in this case for us is the ability of ourselves and retailers to place small signs in the retail stores or directly outside the retail stores so that customers, adult customers, can be notified that cigarettes are available, what the brands are, what the price is.
[Bierbauer:] Actually, two important issues are at stake. The tobacco companies contend the 1965 Federal Labeling Act that required the surgeon general's health warning on cigarette packages, preempts the states from imposing separate ad restrictions. The companies also raise a First Amendment claim for "commercial speech."
[Berlind:] We've got truthful speech here. In addition, this is a restriction that singles out tobacco advertising. It is discriminatory in that way.
[Bierbauer:] But critics counter that commercial speech does not get as strict constitutional protection as political speech.
[Corr:] The current Supreme Court rulings allow states and cities, if they have a very important public purpose, and narrowly tailor their regulation, to regulate advertising, or so-called commercial speech. And that is precisely what Massachusetts is trying to do.
[Bierbauer:] The public purpose, in this case, is to limit teenagers' exposure to the tobacco ads in the hope of reducing teen smoking. It could be a close call. Some justices feel free speech is free speech and should not be divided into different categories to meet different government interests- Jeanne.
[Meserve:] Charles, tell us about the other case being argued today before the Court.
[Bierbauer:] The other case involves a question of whether police can search a vehicle if a suspect or the person that they are watching is not in the vehicle, has left the vehicle prior to making contact with the police. It's a question, again, of a warrantless search. It involves police in Florida tracking some drug operations down there. The Florida Supreme Court has said that's not permissible, and the U.S. Supreme Court will now take up the question of the warrantless search of a vehicle when the driver or passenger has already gotten out of it Jeanne.
[Meserve:] Charles Bierbauer at the Court. Thank you. We are expecting decisions today from the Supreme Court in about half an hour's time. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com