User:Paris1127/Dow Chemical Co. v. United States
 | |
| 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 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Summary judgment for plaintiff, 536 F. Supp. 1355 (E.D. Mich. 1982); reversed on appeal, 749 F.2d 307 (6th Cir. 1984); cert. granted 472 U.S. 1007 (1985) |
| Holding | |
| Fourth Amendment protection involves the invasion of areas where intimate activities occur, whereas "the open areas of an industrial complex are more comparable to an 'open field' in which an individual may not legitimately demand privacy." | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concur/dissent | Powell (concur Part III, dissent Parts I-II), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case related to whether the Fourth Amendment required government inspectors to obtain a warrant before conducting an aerial search of an outdoor industrial area.
Background
[edit]The Dow Chemical Company is a multinational chemical corporation founded and based in Midland, Michigan. The Environmental Protection Agency sought to conduct a follow-up inspection on a Dow facility in Midland. The plant, located on 2,000 acres (810 ha) of land, consisted of covered buildings, outdoor manufacturing areas, and above-ground pipes between these structures. Surrounding the facility was a perimeter fence and security, making any attempt to observe from ground-level difficult if not impossible. When Dow refused the EPA's request for an inspection, the agency chartered an aircraft to take aerial photographs of the facility. When Dow found out, they sued the EPA, alleging that the EPA had conducted a warrantless search of their property. The judge in the District Court issued a summary judgment in favor of Dow, finding that the EPA had violated Dow's expectation of privacy as well as state trade secret laws, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Dow only had an expectation of privacy in its indoor property. Dow appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Ruling
[edit]The Court was asked to determine whether the EPA's aerial photographs were a search, which would have required them to acquire a search warrant.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger held that:
- Michigan's trade secrets laws are irrelevant in this case, as the government was not attempting to appropriate Dow's trade secrets for their own use. State law prohibiting unfair competition is not within the scope of the Fourth Amendment.
- Aerial photography and observation is within the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA did not need for Congress to define every technique that the EPA can use for inspection---the EPA does not need permission to use a technique available to the public at large.
- Taking aerial photographs from public airspace without a warrant is not a search as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. An open industrial complex is not comparable to the curtilage of a private dwelling. The complex is more similar to an "open field" than a private residence. The EPA used a conventional, albeit very precise, camera, however the photographs were not detailed enough to violate privacy.
Justice Powell and three other justices concurred with part III, but dissented in parts I-II.