Minnesota v. Carter

525 U.S. 83 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A police officer went to an apartment building to investigate a tip from a confidential informant. The officer looked in the same basement window through a gap in the closed blind and observed a cocaine bagging operation for several minutes. Affidavits for a search warrant were prepared. When two men left the building in a previously identified Cadillac, the police stopped the car. Inside were Carter and Johns (Ds). They observed a black, zippered pouch and a handgun, later determined to be loaded, on the vehicle's floor. Ds were arrested, and a later police search of the vehicle the next day discovered pagers, a scale, and 47 grams of cocaine in plastic sandwich bags. After seizing the car, the police returned to apartment 103 and arrested Kimberly Thompson, who is not a party to this appeal. There was cocaine residue on the kitchen table and plastic baggies similar to those found in the Cadillac. The informant identified Ds and Thompson as the three people he had observed placing the powder into baggies. Thompson was the lessee of the apartment. Ds lived in Chicago and had come to the apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine. Ds had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 2 1/2 hours. In return for the use of the apartment, Ds had given Thompson one-eighth of an ounce of the cocaine. Ds moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the apartment and the Cadillac, as well as to suppress several post-arrest incriminating statements they had made. Ds' argued that the initial observation of their drug packaging activities was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court held that Ds were not overnight social guests but temporary out-of-state visitors, they were not entitled to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment against the government intrusion into the apartment. The trial court also concluded that the Officer's observation was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Ds were convicted. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that D did not have “standing” to object to the Officer's actions. A divided Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that Ds had “standing” to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment because they had “‘a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.’ The Supreme Court granted certiorari.