AFTER A CAMPUS PROTEST in 1971, police obtained a warrant to search the files of the Stanford Daily, an undergraduate newspaper. Since then, two courts have ruled that law enforcement officials must obtain a subpoena to search a newspaper office. Unlike a warrant, a subpoena gives warning before a search, allowing the paper to gather and submit only the documents, tapes or photographs specifically relevant to the case in question. Moreover, it provides the paper a chance to prove that it in fact has no pertinent material, as was the case at Stanford.

Last week, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling. The court ruled that the press's constitutionally protected rights do not entitle it to any special interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable search and seizure.

We are opposed to this repressive decision, and believe it undermines the First Amendment. Sudden searches based on warrants disrupt the actual daily production of a paper, thus interfering with its constitutionally designated function of providing the public with the news. Far more important are the decision's ramifications on news gathering itself. When law officials burst in unannounced, their thorough search of the paper's premises poses a serious threat to confidentiality of the news sources. The court's decision might bar a journalist from being able to promise confidentiality to potential sources, thus severely restricting journalists'--and hence the public's--access to information.

Perhaps we should not be too shocked at the decision by a court that still bears so clearly the mark of former president Richard M. Nixon. We are, however, both surprised and disappointed by the Carter administration's stand on this issue. The Solicitor General's office has failed to rally to the press's defense, bolstering instead the search power of law enforcement officials.