Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Minnesota v. Olson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentWarrantless EntryExpectation of PrivacyExigent Circumstancesovernight guestlegitimate expectation of privacyFourth Amendment

Facts

Police suspected Olson of involvement in a gas station robbery and murder and learned he had been staying in the upstairs unit of a duplex occupied by Louanne Bergstrom and Julie. After a probable-cause arrest bulletin issued, police learned Olson had returned to the duplex, surrounded the house, and ordered him to come out. When Julie said he had left, officers entered the upper unit without consent or a warrant, with guns drawn, and found Olson hiding in a closet. Olson had spent the previous night there as an overnight guest with permission and had a change of clothes with him.

Issue

Whether Olson, as an overnight guest in another person's home, had a legitimate expectation of privacy sufficient to invoke Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless entry to arrest him there, and whether exigent circumstances justified the entry.

Rule

A person may claim Fourth Amendment protection if he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place invaded. Status as an overnight guest alone is sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the host's home, and absent exigent circumstances, police may not make a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into that home to arrest him.

🔒

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.

Police in Columbus, Ohio, had probable cause to arrest Maya Torres for felony fraud. Maya was spending the night on her cousin Elena Ruiz's couch with Elena's permission when officers, without a warrant or consent, entered the apartment at 11 p.m. and arrested Maya.

If Maya moves to suppress evidence derived from the arrest, what is the strongest argument that she may invoke Fourth Amendment protection against the entry?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a person may claim Fourth Amendment protection if she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place entered, and overnight guest status alone is enough. The majority rejected making protection depend on property rights, rent, or the power to exclude others. Because Maya was an overnight guest, she may challenge a warrantless, nonconsensual entry to arrest her there absent exigent circumstances.