COURT RULES GUESTS LACK PRIVACY RIGHTS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided Supreme Court narrowed the protection
against unreasonable police searches Tuesday by ruling that ``short-term''
guests do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in someone else's
residence.

The high court, by a 6-3 vote, overturned a ruling that threw out evidence
against two drug suspects because a policeman watched them through a window
as they apparently packaged narcotics during an apartment visit.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority that the officer's
observation did not violate the suspects' rights protecting against
unreasonable searches because they were only ''short-term visitors.''

Rehnquist noted that overnight guests have long been able to claim
protection under the Fourth Amendment. But he said such protection should
not be extended to those who visit only briefly. He did not specifically
define ``short-term.''

The case involved a police officer in Eagan, Minnesota, who was approached
in 1994 by an unidentified person who said people were inside an apartment
``bagging'' a white powder.

The officer went to the apartment and looked through gaps in closed blinds
covering a window. He saw Wayne Carter, Melvin Johns and Kimberly Thompson
involved in what appeared to be a drug-packaging operation.

Carter and Johns were later arrested after they were seen putting items in a
car outside the apartment. Police found a gun and a black zippered pouch in
the car that contained cocaine. A search of Carter's duffel bag also showed
traces of cocaine.

Carter and Johns were charged with drug offenses. In return for the use of
Thompson's apartment, they had given her a small amount of cocaine, the
police later learned.

Carter and Johns sought to suppress all evidence obtained from the apartment
on the grounds that the officer's initial observation constituted an
unreasonable search.

Rehnquist, in the court's ruling Tuesday, said that while the apartment was
Thompson's dwelling, it was simply a place for Carter and Johns to do
business.

``Property used for commercial purposes is treated differently (under the
Fourth Amendment) than residential property,'' the chief justice said.

Rehnquist also cited the relatively short amount of time Carter and Johns
were in the apartment and their lack of any previous connection with
Thompson in ruling that their rights had not been violated.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter dissented.

Ginsburg said the court's decision ``undermines not only the security of
short-term guests, but also the security of the home resident.''

``When a homeowner or lessor personally invites a guest into her home to
share in a common endeavor, whether it be for conversation, to engage in
leisure activities or for business purposes licit or illicit, that guest
should share his host's shelter against unreasonable searches and
seizures,'' she said.

The ruling largely followed the position recommended by the U.S. Justice
Department in supporting the state of Minnesota.

Checked-by: Don Beck