Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Minnesota v. Carter

Supreme Court of the United States · 1998 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureLegitimate Expectation of PrivacyFourth Amendmentlegitimate expectation of privacyRakasstanding

Facts

A police officer investigating a tip looked through a gap in the closed blind of a ground-floor apartment and observed respondents Carter and Johns, along with the lessee, bagging cocaine. The police later learned that Carter and Johns lived in Chicago, had never been to the apartment before, and were there only about two and one-half hours for the sole purpose of packaging cocaine in exchange for giving the lessee some cocaine. After the observation, police stopped the respondents' car, arrested them, and obtained additional evidence from the car and apartment. Respondents moved to suppress, claiming the officer's observation violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

Issue

Whether respondents, who were in another person's apartment for only a short time and solely to package cocaine, had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that apartment sufficient to invoke Fourth Amendment protection. If not, they could not challenge the officer's observation as a violation of their own Fourth Amendment rights.

Rule

To claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must show that he personally had an expectation of privacy in the place searched and that the expectation was reasonable, meaning it has a source outside the Fourth Amendment in property law or in social understandings recognized and permitted by society. An overnight guest may have such an expectation in another's home, but a person who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not; where the visit is purely commercial, brief, and lacks any prior connection to the householder, the visitor's position is closer to one merely permitted on the premises.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Eli Navarro drove from Milwaukee to Madison to meet Tasha Green in her townhouse. He had never met Tasha before that day and stayed about three hours solely to help her sort counterfeit bills for payment. An officer peered through a side window and saw the activity, leading to Eli's arrest.

Can Eli most likely suppress the evidence on the ground that the officer violated Eli's own Fourth Amendment rights in searching the townhouse?

Explanation. The majority held that a defendant may invoke the Fourth Amendment only by showing a personal, reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. A short-term visitor in another's home, present only for a few hours for a purely commercial purpose and with no prior relationship to the householder, is closer to one merely permitted on the premises than to an overnight guest. Eli therefore likely cannot object based on violation of his own Fourth Amendment rights.