In the 1985 case Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allowing it to use aerial photography as a tool for inspecting industrial plants without obtaining a warrant. The EPA had used an aircraft to take photographs of Dow's chemical plant from navigable airspace after being denied access for on-site inspections multiple times by Dow Chemical Company. The company argued that this constituted a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment and thus required a warrant, but the court disagreed with this argument stating that since any member of public flying in this airspace could have seen what these photographs revealed, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and hence no search occurred within Fourth Amendment meaning.

In the dissenting opinion for Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that aerial photography of a chemical plant by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. He contended that while it was true that any member of the public could legally fly over and photograph Dow's property, this did not mean such actions were reasonable when conducted by government authorities without a warrant or just cause. The majority’s reliance on open fields doctrine was misplaced as it failed to consider important distinctions between open fields and industrial complexes like Dow's facility which are designed to be private despite being outdoors. Furthermore, he disagreed with their assertion that no expectation of privacy existed in commercial properties; businesses should have some degree of protection from unwarranted governmental intrusions into their premises even if they do not enjoy same level as individuals in their homes.