Sunday, January 13, 2019

Minnesota v. Carter case brief

    1. Minnesota v. Carter case brief summary

      1. 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
      2. While the warrant was being processed two men left the building and he stopped their car
      3. Carter and Johns were there only for business - it was the residence of Thompson
      4. Property used for use of commercial purposes is treated different for 4th am. purposes
        1. 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
      5. Not a PHPE
      6. Scalia- the 4th am. clearly says “their persons, houses, papers and effects”
        1. We look to every individual and look at their specific rights
        2. They may have violated the home owners’ rights, but not Carter’s
        3. Constitutional rights are personal rights
      7. DISSENT
        1. Through the hosts invitation the guest gains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home
      8. DISSENT
        1. They were doing their bagging in plain view so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy so this isn’t even a search

Support us by: 
Visiting: to rid yourself of that almost criminal social media addiction. Checking out our amazing store on Etsy:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.