Pubdate: Thu, 09 Dec 1998
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Contact:  http://www.post-gazette.com/
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing.

GET THE GUEST? \ THE SUPREME COURT PROTECTS SOME VISITORS FROM SEARCHES

If a man's home is his castle for purposes of warding off unreasonable
police searches, what about the "castle's" guests?

Overnight guests long have enjoyed the same privacy protections as
homeowners under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Now the U.S.
Supreme Court has concluded that protections against unreasonable searches
also cover some visitors who don't sleep over.

Some, but not all. In a recent ruling in a Minnesota case, a majority of
Supreme Court justices endorsed the view that, even if most casual visitors
to a house enjoy privacy protections, some visitors have too "fleeting" a
connection with the premises to be protected against unreasonable police
searches.

The ruling upheld the convictions of two cocaine dealers who were arrested
after a police officer spotted them and a woman placing a white substance
in  plastic bags when the officer peeked through the closed blinds of her
apartment.

The decision was complex, with vari ous justices agreeing and disagreeing
on separate aspects of the case. Chief Justice William Rehnquist's majority
opinion upholding the convictions held that "an overnight guest in a home
may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, but one who is merely
present with the consent of the householder may not."

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, contributing a fifth vote to the chief
justice's opinion, explained separately that the majority opinion is
"consistent with my view that almost all social guests have protection
against unreasonable searches, in their host's home."

The "almost all" qualification invites police to test the limits. It would
have been better if the court had ruled clearly that all individuals
welcomed to a house -  guest, neighbor or pizza delivery person -  shares
the privacy protections accorded their hosts.

That doesn't mean the police couldn't investigate criminal activity that
goes on behind the closed doors of a family home; it does mean that they
would have to proceed with probable cause.

- ---
Checked-by: Pat Dolan