Pubdate: Thu, 3 Dec 1998
Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Contact:  http://www.suntimes.com/index/
Copyright: 1998 The Sun-Times Co.

EYE AT THE KEYHOL

The Supreme Court again has narrowly interpreted privacy rights, ruling on
Tuesday that people who visit someone's home only briefly or to do business
do not have the same protection against police searches as do overnight
guests. The ruling - that such visitors have no reasonable expectation of
privacy - no doubt will give comfort to those who want to expand police
rights to search suspected criminals. However, it further erodes the widely
held expectation that one's home is one's castle and an inviolable bastion
of privacy, and that those protections extend to one's invited guests.

In a 6-3 vote, the high court reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court and
reinstated the convictions of two men for trafficking in cocaine. In a 5-4
vote, the justices made a controversial distinction between residents'
right to privacy and that same right as it applies to visitors in a
dwelling "simply . .  . to do business."

In a ruling just eight years ago, the court found that overnight guests
have an "expectation of privacy" protecting them from warrantless searches
and arrest as proscribed by the Fourth Amendment. Tuesday's ruling makes it
clear that short-term visitors do not share that same privacy right.

The case arose in 1994 after police saw the defendants enter an apartment
in Eagan, Minn., and observed them through closed  venetian blinds packing
a white powder into bags. They were arrested a few hours later.  Because
the men were in the house for a relatively short time to conduct business,
the court ruled they had no standing to complain about an illegal search.
That is the argument made by the Minnesota prosecutor, who hailed the
ruling as a victory for public safety advocates and a much-needed tool for
police in their fight to keep communities free of drug dealers and other
criminals.

Tuesday's ruling opens to question a wide range of possible scenarios that
might wind up in court. For example, would the two visitors have shared the
host's privacy right if they were blood relatives or close friends - as
well as criminal associates? How long must a visitor remain in a home
before he legally  can share the host's protection from unreasonable
searches?

We eagerly await a Supreme Court ruling to clarify these troubling
questions. Otherwise, we share the fear put to paper by Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg: that homeowners who invite guests into their homes - for legal or
illegal purposes - thereby "increase the risk of unwarranted governmental
peering and prying into their dwelling places

- ---