| Litigants: | Dow Chemical Co. v. United States |
| Arguedate: | December 10 |
| Argueyear: | 1985 |
| Decidedate: | May 19 |
| Decideyear: | 1986 |
| Fullname: | Dow Chemical Company v. United States |
| Usvol: | 476 |
| Uspage: | 227 |
| Parallelcitations: | 106 S. Ct. 1819; 90 L. Ed. 2d 226 |
| Oralargument: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1259 |
| 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, . |
| Holding: | The Fourth Amendment protects against 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." |
| Majority: | Burger |
| Joinmajority: | White, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | Powell (concur Part III, dissent Parts I-II) |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amend. IV |
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1986 dealing with the right to privacy and advanced technology of aerial surveillance.
The EPA used, without a warrant, a commercial aerial photographer to get photographs of a heavily guarded Dow facility that was, according to the petitioner, protected by the State Trade Secrecy Law. The decision: For purposes of aerial surveillance, the open areas of an industrial complex are more comparable to an "open field" in which an individual may not legitimately demand privacy.[1] In the absence of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches does not apply.