Pubdate: 2 Dec. 1998
Source: York Daily Record (PA)
Contact: letters.ydr.com
Website: http://www.ydr.com/
Copyright: {1998} The York Daily Record
Author: Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

SHORT-TERM VISITORS HAVE LIMITED RIGHTS

The supreme court ruling involved the arrest of two men for allegedly
selling drugs.

WASHINGTON - Short-term visitors invited into a home for  business
purposes don't have the constitutional protections against
unreasonable police searches that their hosts enjoy, the Supreme Court
concluded 5-4 Tuesday.

The court had ruled in a 1990 Minnesota case that guests who  stay
overnight at someone else's dwelling are entitled to the same privacy
rights as the occupant.

But in a new criminal case from Minnesota, Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist wrote for the court that short-term guests have no  such
claim to privacy.

Three dissenters protested that the decision "undermines not  only the
security of short-term guests, but also the security of  the home resident."

Police now will be tempted "to pry into private dwellings  without
warrant, to find evidence incriminating guests who do not  rest there
through the night," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  She was joined
by Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

The decision coincided with a general Supreme Court trend over the
last 20 years to give the police greater investigative leeway  by
limiting Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable  searches
and seizures.

"It was no surprise . . . it's just another example of the Supreme
Court's limited view of the Fourth Amendment, " observed Tracey
Maclin, a Boston University law professor who wrote a brief for the
American Civil Liberties Union in the case decided Tuesday.

The case arose in 1994 when James Thielen, a police officer in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul suburb of Eagan, investigated a tip that some
people were putting white powder into bags in a ground-floor apartment.

Without first obtaining a search warrant, Thielen went to the
apartment, peered through gaps in the closed blinds and later arrested
Kimberly Thompson, who leased the apartment, and her guests, Wayne
Thomas Carter and Melvin Johns.

All three were convicted of cocaine violations. Lawyers for Carter and
Johns  appealed on grounds that the drug evidence against them should
have been  suppressed as the product of an unreasonable search. The
Minnesota Supreme  Court agreed, saying that Carter and Johns had "a
legitimate expectation of privacy" and that Thielen's
search-by-peeping was unreasonable.

Thompson was not part of the appeal.

Rehnquist, in overruling the state court and restoring the
convictions, concluded that Carter and Johns had no privacy right and
so "any search which may have occurred did not violate their Fourth
Amendment rights."

They could not claim privacy protection, Rehnquist explained, because
they had a commercial purpose, stayed only a short time at the
apartment and had no previous connection with the occupant.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who furnished the critical fifth vote, said
he joined the majority because "its reasoning is consistent with my
view that almost all social guests have a legitimate expectation of
privacy, and hence protection against unreasonable searches, in their
host's home."

Kennedy's concurring opinion suggested that future claims of privacy
by short-time visitors could turn on whether they were on the premises
primarily for social or commercial purposes.

A host's poker-playing buddies might have privacy rights, but a pizza
deliveryman or an Avon lady probably would not. The justices did not
say, although they used those examples when the case was argued two
months ago.

Nor did they explain whether the result would have been  different if
Carter and Johns had stayed in the apartment overnight.

The court majority - Rehnquist, Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas - said that it was unnecessary  to decide
whether Thielen's observations constituted a "search"  and, if so,
whether it was reasonable.

Justice Stephen Breyer did so, however. While agreeing with the
dissenters that the defendants had a privacy right, Breyer said he
believed that Officer Thielen had acted reasonably.

- ---
Checked-by: Rich O'Grady