Supreme Court Roundup; Copter Search Without a Warrant Is Upheld
LEAD: The Supreme Court ruled today that the police do not need a search warrant to conduct low-altitude helicopter searches of private property.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the police do not need a search warrant to conduct low-altitude helicopter searches of private property.
The 5-to-4 decision allowed Florida prosecutors to use evidence garnered by a police helicopter that flew 400 feet over a greenhouse in which marijuana plants were visible through a partly dismantled roof. The ruling overturned a decision by the Florida Supreme Court, which had held that the flight was an unconstitutional search.
The decision today was an extension of a ruling three years ago, in which the Justices permitted a warrantless search by an airplane flying at 1,000 feet. The rationale then was that since aircraft commonly fly over private property at such altitudes, no one could reasonably expect property visible to the unaided eye from such a flight to remain shielded from view.
Since low-level helicopter flights are a less common occurrence, the question for the Court today was whether a landowner could reasonably expect privacy from that type of aerial intrusion. No Majority on Rationale
While five Justices agreed that the flight was constitutionally permissible, there was no majority agreement on a rationale.
Justice Byron R. White, in a plurality opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy, relied primarily on the fact that the flight was within the airspace legally available to helicopters under Federal regulations.
While fixed-wing aircraft may generally fly no lower than 500 feet, there are no lower limits for helicopters. 'There is no indication that such flights are unheard of in Pasco County, Fla.,' Justice White said. He also noted that the flight had revealed 'no intimate details' of life on the property.
In a separate opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed that the search was constitutional but said Justice White's opinion placed too much emphasis on the fact that the helicopter was in legal airspace. Flights at lower altitudes than the 400 feet in this case, she said, 'may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy despite compliance with F.A.A. air safety regulations.'
In a dissenting opinion, Justice William J. Brennan said that under the plurality's approach, 'the expectation of privacy is defeated if a single member of the public could conceivably position herself to see into the area in question without doing anything illegal.' He said there was a 'lack of any meaningful limit' to the type of search the opinion would authorize.
Justices Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens also dissented in the case, Florida v. Riley. The Court also took these actions today: Tanker Operators Lose Suit on Bombing Raid The Court ruled that the Liberian owner and operator of an oil tanker could not use the Federal courts to sue the Government of Argentina for the tanker's loss in a bombing raid in the 1982 Argentine-British war in the Falkland Islands.
The decision, which was unanimous in most respects, overturned a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York. That court ruled that the ship's operators were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of United States courts, even though the United States was not involved in the case, because the Federal courts are authorized to hear certain international disputes.
The Justice Department had urged the Court to overrule that decision on the ground that there would be 'substantial adverse foreign policy consequences' to opening Federal courthouses to such cases. In an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court agreed with the Justice Department that a Federal law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, barred this type of lawsuit. (Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess). Court Refuses to Hear Vanessa Redgrave Appeal Without comment, the Court refused to hear an appeal by Vanessa Redgrave, the British actress, of a lower court ruling that dismissed her lawsuit against the Boston Symphony Orchestra. The lawsuit stemmed from the symphony's cancellation, in 1982, of a contract calling for Miss Redgrave to narrate several performances in Boston and New York. The actress has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights, and the symphony said it received threats of violence and a possible riot if she appeared.
Miss Redgrave received a $27,500 fee for the broken contract but had sought potentially far higher damages under a Massachusetts civil rights law. But the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled last August that the law did not permit courts to second-guess 'the aesthetic judgments of artists,' a reference to the symphony's argument that it had the right to cancel the concerts as a matter of its own 'artistic integrity.' (Redgrave v. Boston Symphony).