HIGH COURT STUDIES PRIVACY RIGHTS IN DRUG CASE

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Most people who temporarily visit
someone else's home should not be protected against police searches
without a warrant, the Supreme Court was told today by a prosecutor in
a Minnesota drug case.

In particular, such protection doesn't extend to two men arrested
after a policeman peeked through a gap in window blinds and saw them
packaging a white powdery substance, prosecutor James C. Backstrom
told the high court.

``Criminal activity is not the kind of activity normally associated
with the privacy of a dwelling,'' Backstrom said.

But attorney Bradford Colbert, representing the two men, said that in
many cases short-term guests in a home should have the same protection
against unreasonable searches as the Constitution's Fourth Amendment
gives to homeowners.

But both lawyers and the justices themselves struggled over which
house visitors -- whether involved in legal or illegal activity -- are
entitled to privacy protection.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said there was no doubt homeowners were
entitled to constitutional protection. But he added, ``Why do we want
to protect the pizza man?''

The Avon lady should not expect her activities to be more private if
invited indoors than if she made her sales pitch on the front step,
suggested Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, ``Would it be any different ...
if they had gathered to play a game of poker rather than put together
coke?''

Backstrom said most short-term guests do not have an expectation of
privacy, but a frequent visitor might have a stronger argument.

``If they play (poker) five time a week they get standing, but if they
play once they don't?'' asked Justice David H. Souter.

The justices are expected to issue a ruling by July.

Minnesota's highest court threw out the drug convictions of Wayne
Thomas Carter and Melvin Johns.

The Clinton administration supported the state's appeal of that
ruling. Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey A. Lamken argued that it is
not a search when a police officer sees something that is exposed to
outside view.

The high court ruled in 1990 that an overnight guest in a private home
has the same privacy rights as the homeowner. The justices have not
given such protection to someone who visits but does not stay overnight.

Courts also have denied privacy protection for activities that are
easily observable by the public.

Carter and Johns were arrested in Eagan, Minn., in May 1994 after a
police officer acting on a tip looked in an apartment window and saw
Carter, Johns and another person putting white powder into plastic
bags.

To see inside, the officer walked behind some bushes and looked
through gaps in the closed window blinds. The men were arrested when
they left the apartment and tried to drive away. A pouch containing
cocaine was found in the car.

Carter and Johns were convicted of conspiracy to commit a drug crime
and aiding the commission of a drug crime. They appealed, saying the
drug evidence was unlawfully gained without a search warrant.

Lower courts ruled against them, but the Minnesota Supreme Court threw
out their convictions. Carter and Johns had legal standing to
challenge the officer's actions even though they were only guests in
the apartment, the court said.

The state's top court also said the officer took ``extraordinary
measures'' to look into the apartment, and therefore his actions
amounted to a search requiring a warrant.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady