Sunday, January 13, 2019

Minnesota v. Carter case brief

Minnesota v. Carter case brief summary
525 U.S. 83, 119 S.Ct. 469 (1998)

FACTS
The respondents were bagging cocaine when a police officer looked through a drawn window blind after an informant saw them doing it through the window. 
He then filed for a warrant.  
While the warrant was being processed two men left the building and he stopped their car.  
Carter and Johns were there only for business - it was the residence of Thompson

ISSUE: Does a guest have an expectation of privacy?

HOLDING: No

DISCUSSION:
•Property used for use of commercial purposes is treated different for 4th am. purposes
•Because they were there for a short period of time and for business purposes and no expectation of privacy there are no 4th am rights to violate so there is no need to decide whether there was a search

This is not a PHPE (persons, houses, papers and effects)

Scalia:  The 4th amendment clearly says “their persons, houses, papers and effects” (PHPE) 
Study this for the bar exam

•We look to every individual and look at their specific rights
•They may have violated the homeowners’ rights, but not Carter’s
•Constitutional rights are personal rights.

DISSENT

Through the host's invitation the guest gains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home

The Court distinguished these cases from Minnesota v. Olson, 495 u.s. 91 (1990), where they held that a social overnight guest in one’s home would have an expectation of privacy in the premises. They said that overnight guests in a home may challenge the legality of a search, but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder could not.

•They were doing their bagging in plain view so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy so this isn’t even a search


Follow us on Instagram:  Instagram.com/law_school_case_briefs

1 comment:

  1. This case is about if a guest has an expectation of privacy.

    "The Supreme Court held that Carter and Johns had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment as they were only in the apartment one time, for a short time, and for were there for a commercial purpose only. Since they had no expectation of privacy, there is no need to determine whether the officer’s looking through the window was a search."

    Well, ain't that an interesting turn of events!

    ReplyDelete

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.