Minnesota v. Carter - Minnesota v. Johns
U.S. Supreme Court
December 1, 1998
(In a case which, no doubt, will greatly encourage the use of drapes and heavy curtains in
druggers’ homes, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the 4th Amendment does not protect shortterm business invitees’ privacy inside someone else’s home. The opinion draws a sharp
distinction between an overnight guest in a home and a more temporary business or commercial
visitor. Strangely, the nine justices split into no less than five different opinions. Perhaps a
record? Anyway, it’s either a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision. Who cares? We won.)
For background let me remind you that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S.
91 (1990), held that, in certain circumstances, a person may have a legitimate expectation of
privacy in the home of another. Specifically, in that case, the Court found that an overnight guest
in a house had the sort of expectation of privacy that the 4th Amendment protects. The Court
said, "To hold that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home
merely recognizes the every day expectations of privacy that we all share. Staying overnight in
another’s home is a long-standing social custom that serves functions recognized as valuable by
society ... the overnight guest ... seeks shelter in another’s home precisely because it provides
him with privacy, a place where he and his possessions will not be disturbed by anyone but his
host and those his host allows inside."
In this case, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, a police officer in a suburb of
Minneapolis-St. Paul, went to the window of a ground-floor apartment, peered through the blinds
and, for several minutes, watched three people, two men, Wayne Carter and Melvin Johns, and a
woman, Kimberly Thompson, as they placed cocaine into plastic bags.
The officer notified headquarters and requested back-up and a search warrant. Almost
immediately the two men departed the building. Their Cadillac was stopped and a handgun,
pagers, a scale and 47 grams of cocaine in plastic bags were seized. When the search warrant
arrived, the apartment was entered. Cocaine, residue and plastic bags were seized and Thompson
was arrested.
As it turned out, it was Thompson’s apartment. Carter and Johns lived in Chicago, had never
before been to the apartment and had come to the apartment for the sole purpose of bagging
cocaine. They were in the apartment 2 ½ hours and had given Thompson 1/8 of an ounce of coke
for use of the apartment and for her help in bagging the cocaine.
The defense argued that Carter and Johns should be acquitted because both were toilet-trained
late and Thompson’s landlord should have placed draperies in her apartment instead of seethrough blinds. O.K., I’m kidding. Just wanted to see if you’re paying attention.
Actually, the defense argued that all evidence seized from the Caddie and the apartment and
several post-arrest statements should be suppressed, because the officer’s observation through
the blinds was an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment, violating their expectation of
privacy in Thompson’s apartment. The trial court and the state court of appeals disagreed with
the defense. The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, reversed the convictions, finding the
officer’s action was an unreasonable search and the two dopes were entitled to an expectation of
privacy in the apartment of another.
But here the Big Court reverses the Minnesota Supreme Court and rules the two men have no
standing to complain and no legal expectation of privacy in Kimberly’s apartment, because they,
"... were obviously not overnight guests, but were essentially present for a business transaction
and were only in the home a matter of hours. There is no suggestion that they had a previous
relationship with Thompson, or that there was any other purpose to their visit. Nor was there
anything similar to the overnight guest relationship in Olson to suggest a degree of acceptance
into the household. While the apartment was a dwelling for Thompson, it was for these
respondents simply a place to do business."
All say Amen!
(Bottom line? Remember, Kimberly Thompson was not involved in this matter. Because the
Court concluded that Carter and Johns had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment
and, therefore, were not entitled to 4th Amendment protection, the Court said it did not have to
decide whether or not the officer peering through the blinds constituted a "search." Too bad.
Interesting question.)