PRIVACY RIGHTS ARE NARROWED SHORT-TIME VISITORS DON'T SHARE PROTECTIONS
OF RESIDENTS, TOP COURT SAYS

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a narrowing of privacy rights that
people who visit someone's home for a short time do not have the same
protection against a police search as the residents.

Three justices said the ruling ignores the home's importance as "the most
essential bastion of privacy."

"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," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the 5-4
court.

The constitutional amendment protects against unreasonable police searches
and seizures, but the nation's highest court over the past three decades
has grown less willing to invoke the amendment to restrict police.

Led by Rehnquist, the court voted 6-3 to reverse a Minnesota Supreme Court
ruling and reinstate two men's cocaine convictions. The justices split 5-
4, however, in deciding the scope of visitors' privacy rights.

Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the
decision undermines the security of residents as well as their guests.

"A home-dweller places her own privacy at risk, the court's approach
indicates, when she opens her home to others, uncertain whether the
duration of their stay, their purpose and their acceptance into the
household will earn protection," Ginsburg said.

James Backstrom, the Minnesota prosecutor who won the case, called the
ruling "good news for the protection of public safety in this country -
help for keeping our communities free from drug dealers and others engaged
in crime."

Civil libertarians saw it differently.

"The court embraces a view of privacy that is contrary to the views of most
Americans, who assume that when they are guests in someone's home they
won't be subjected to government snooping," said Steven Shapiro, the
American Civil Liberties Union's top lawyer.

The decision drew a distinction between overnight and more temporary guests.

The court in 1990 had ruled that overnight guests enjoy an "expectation of
privacy" that protects them against unreasonable searches and arrests by
police who do not have court warrants.

But Wayne Thomas Carter and Melvin Johns had been at an Eagan, Minn.,
apartment for only a few hours before they left and were arrested with
cocaine in their possession in 1994. A policeman had seen them through an
apartment window putting a white powder into bags.

The court found that the men had no standing to complain about a possibly
illegal search. The justices thus did not decide whether the policeman's
actions - looking through the window - constituted such a search.

"There is no suggestion that they had a previous relationship with *
apartment renter* or that there was any other purpose to their visit,"
Rehnquist wrote.

"Nor was there anything similar to the overnight guest relationship ... to
suggest a degree of acceptance into the household."

The ruling seemed to discount the privacy rights of people like the Avon
lady and the pizza delivery person, two examples of short-term visitors
cited when the Minnesota case was argued in October.

But the rights of regular poker-night buddies, baby-sitters and others may
have to be clarified in future cases.

Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O' Connor, Antonin
Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer voted to overturn the Minnesota court's ruling
but in a concurring opinion said he agreed with the dissenters that the two
accused drug traffickers could claim some protection under the Fourth
Amendment.

Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter joined Ginsburg's dissenting
opinion

Checked-by: Joel W. Johnson