Some houseguests are not protected from searches, Supreme Court holds.

The Supreme Court last month rejected claims by two drug dealers that they were entitled to privacy when bagging cocaine in the home of an acquaintance, holding that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches does not cover every person invited into a home.

Three dissenters said the decision undermines the sanctity of the home, "the most essential bastion of privacy recognized by the law."

Citing its earlier decision in Rakas v. Illinois (439 U.S. 128 (1978)), the Court said that "in order to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable." (Minnesota v. Carter, No. 97-1147, 1998 WL 823045 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1998).)

The six-justice majority found that the defendants in the case, two Chicago drug dealers, could not reasonably expect privacy when they spent 2 1/2 hours in an Eagan, Minnesota, apartment, which the resident had allowed them to use to package the drugs. A confidential informant tipped off the police, and an officer went to the apartment and watched the drug activity through a gap in the closed window blinds.

The defendants were arrested after leaving the apartment. They appealed their convictions on the ground that the officer had illegally observed them through the window. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, holding that "society does recognize as valuable the right of property owners or leaseholders to invite persons into the privacy of their homes to conduct a common task, be it legal or illegal activity." (569 N.W.2d 169, 176 (Minn. 1997).)

The Supreme Court rejected that view. The majority said that previous Court rulings had shown that Fourth Amendment protection applies to overnight guests, but not to guests who are "merely present with the consent of the householder."

The drug dealers "were essentially present for a business transaction and were only in the home a matter of hours," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority. "There is no suggestion that they had a previous relationship with [the resident of the apartment], or that there was any other purpose to their visit." The Court concluded that there was no illegal search and reinstated the convictions.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg objected to the majority's view that a guest can only expect privacy if he or she stays in another's home overnight. She also expressed concern that the decision infringes on a resident's privacy rights.

"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 wrote.

Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter joined the dissent.