User:Ohmyerica/Dow Chemical v. United States
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | |
| Argued December 10, 1985 Decided May 19, 1986 | |
|---|---|
| Full case name | Dow Chemical Company v. United States |
| Citations | 476 U.S. 227 (more) 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226, 24 ERC 1385, 54 USLW 4464, 16 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,679 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concur/dissent | Powell, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
Dow Chemical v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require government inspectors to obtain warrants before conducting aerial searches of outdoor business facilities.
Background
[edit]Facts of the Case
[edit]Dow Chemical Company operated a large chemical manufacturing facility in Midland, Michigan. The facility consisted of numerous buildings, with equipment and piping visible from the air. Dow used elaborate security measures at the facility, including investigating any low-level flights by aircrafts over the facility. In 1978, Dow allowed the EPA to inspect the facility for violations of the Clean Air Act, but when the EPA requested a second inspection, Dow would not consent. The EPA, without Dow's knowledge, then used a commercial aerial photographer to take photographs of the facility, lawfully within navigable airspace.
Procedural History
[edit]Dow brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that the EPA violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. The District Court granted Dow's motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining the EPA from taking aerial photographs of Dow's facility and from disseminating, releasing, or copying the photographs already taken.
The EPA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Opinion of the Court
[edit]References
[edit]External links
[edit]