BAD DECISIONS PEEPING TOMS

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to nibble away at the Fourth
Amendment. Recently it issued a decision that limits a guest's
expectations of privacy in a private home. What's next?

The ruling arose from a Minnesota case in which police, acting on a
tip, peered through partially closed window blinds of a private home.
Inside they saw two guests measuring white powder into small plastic
bags. When the pair left the house they were arrested.

The defendants were found guilty of drug charges, but their
convictions were overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which
ruled that when the police looked in the windows without a warrant,
they conducted an illegal search.

In its ruling, the state court said that although "society does not
recognize as valuable the task of bagging cocaine, we conclude that
society does recognize as valuable the right of property owners or
leaseholders to invite persons into the privacy of their homes."

No one wants to defend drug dealers, but how high a price is society
willing to pay to apprehend these lawbreakers? The Supreme Court asks
Americans to accept the notion of police as Peeping Toms in the
pursuit of bad guys.

The court tried to draw a distinction between overnight house guests
and short-term visitors to a home. The former, according to the
majority, can continue to expect privacy when they go visiting, while
"social" visitors cannot.

But the distinction seems inconsequential, and does not blunt the
dangerous direction the court has taken.

In recent years the Supreme Court has several times eaten away at
citizens' privacy rights. For instance, a 1996 decision gave police
the go-ahead to stop motorists on "pretextual" grounds, such as a
broken taillight, and then proceed to search automobiles.

The Constitution notwithstanding, apprehension of criminals is gaining
precedence over the right of citizens to be free of unreasonable
searches and seizures.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady