No. Your right to privacy is personal and doesn't just appear because you're in someone's house. These guys weren't overnight guests or friends hanging out; they were there strictly for a business deal. Since they were there for a short time, for commercial reasons, and didn't know the person who lived there, they didn't have a reasonable expectation that their activities would be private from the police.

I agree they lose, but for a simpler reason. The Constitution protects you in 'your' house. This wasn't their house, so they aren't protected. The whole 'expectation of privacy' idea is too confusing; we should just stick to what the words of the Constitution say.

I agree with the outcome. Most social guests should have privacy in their host's home. But Carter and Johns weren't social guests. They had a very weak connection to the home and were just using it as a place to package drugs. That's not enough to get Fourth Amendment privacy protection.

I disagree with the main opinion on one point: I think the visitors *did* have a right to privacy. But, I still think they lose the case because the police officer's actions weren't an illegal 'search.' He was standing in a public area outside and just looked in the window, which anyone could have done. So, no laws were broken.

Yes. A person's home is a very private place. If the owner invites you in, you should be protected from police spying, no matter why you are there. This ruling makes it easier for police to peek into private homes, which hurts the privacy of both the guest and the homeowner.

No, people visiting a home for a short business deal don't have privacy rights against searches because the Fourth Amendment protects people in "their own" homes. Carter and Johns weren't overnight guests, just there for business, with no real connection to the apartment or the person living there. So the officer's peeking wasn't an illegal search of "their" place.

Yes, when someone invites you into their home, you should have the same privacy protection as they do, even if you're doing something illegal together. Your privacy rights shouldn't depend on if you're innocent or guilty.

I agree with the main decision because it fits our recent cases. But those cases don't pay enough attention to the exact words of the Fourth Amendment, which protect a person's right to privacy in "their own" house, not other people's houses. The Fourth Amendment has never stretched so far as to protect someone in another person's home.

I agree with the main decision. Most social guests do have privacy rights in their host's home. But Carter and Johns had only a super quick and unimportant connection to the apartment, just using it to process their drugs. They didn't have any real ties to the renter or her privacy, so they can't claim Fourth Amendment protection.

I think Carter and Johns can claim Fourth Amendment rights, but I don't think the officer's peeking from a public spot violated those rights. The officer was in a place outside the apartment where the public could be, looking through the window. The apartment residents' attempts to block the view would have failed against any regular person passing by there. Based on our past cases, this wasn't an unreasonable search that the Fourth Amendment forbids.

Yes, when someone invites a person into their home, they should have the same privacy protection as the host does, even if they are doing something illegal together. Privacy rights shouldn't depend on whether someone is innocent or guilty.

No, people visiting a home for a short business deal don't have privacy rights that protect them from unreasonable police searches. I agree with the main decision because it fits our recent cases. But those cases don't pay enough attention to the exact words of the Fourth Amendment, which protect a person's right to privacy in "their own" house, not other people's houses. The Fourth Amendment has never stretched so far as to protect someone in another person's home.

No, people visiting a home for a short business deal don't have privacy rights that protect them from unreasonable police searches. I agree with the main decision. Most social guests do have privacy rights in their host's home. But Carter and Johns had only a super quick and unimportant connection to the apartment, just using it to process their drugs. They didn't have any real ties to the renter or her privacy, so they can't claim Fourth Amendment protection.

Carter and Johns can claim Fourth Amendment rights, but the officer's peeking from a public spot did not violate those rights. The officer was in a place outside the apartment where the public could be, looking through the window. The apartment residents' attempts to block the view would have failed against any regular person passing by there. Based on our past cases, this wasn't an unreasonable search that the Fourth Amendment forbids.

"[I] n order to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable; ie, one that has `a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and …

—the Supreme Court determined that two defendants, who were in another person's apartment for a short time solely for the purpose of packaging cocaine, had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment.

"[A] n overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not."

In the context of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, "it is beyond dispute that the home is entitled to special protection as the center of the private lives of our people."

The definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.

"The [Fourth] Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches of `their persons [and] houses' and thus indicates that the Fourth Amendment is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual. "

In order to have a legitimate expectation of privacy, the defendant must show (1) a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) the expectation is objectively reasonable.

"The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure in their `houses' was drawn from the English common-law maxim, `A man's home is his castle.'"

As the Solicitor General acknowledged, the illegality of the host-guest conduct, the fact that they were partners in crime, would not alter the analysis.... If the illegality of the activity made constitutional an otherwise unconstitutional search, such Fourth Amendment protection, reserved for the innocent only, would have little force in regulating police behavior toward either …

No. Individuals who are present in another person's home for a short-term, commercial transaction do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects personal rights, and a defendant must demonstrate a personal, reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. Unlike an overnight guest who has a significant connection and expectation of privacy (Minnesota v. Olson), Carter and Johns were not social guests. Their visit was purely commercial, they were on the premises for a very short time, and they had no prior connection to the lessee, Kimberly Thompson. Their situation is closer to that of someone merely permitted on the premises, who may not claim Fourth Amendment protection, rather than an overnight guest who is integrated into the household.

Agrees with the judgment but on different grounds. The text of the Fourth Amendment protects people in 'their' houses, which historically and textually means their own homes, not the homes of others. The common law maxim 'a man's home is his castle' only applied to the resident, not to visitors or strangers. The Court's 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test from Katz v. United States is an unhelpful and unmoored standard; a textual analysis clearly shows that Carter and Johns were not searched in 'their house' and thus have no Fourth Amendment claim.

Agrees with the judgment. While most social guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their host's home, Carter and Johns were not social guests. They established nothing more than a 'fleeting and insubstantial connection' with the home, using it merely as a processing station for a commercial, criminal enterprise. Because they had no meaningful tie to the owner, the home, or the owner's expectation of privacy, they cannot claim Fourth Amendment protection.

Concurs only in the judgment. He agrees with the dissent that the respondents did have a legitimate expectation of privacy and could claim Fourth Amendment protection. However, he would reverse the Minnesota Supreme Court on the separate ground that the police officer's observation did not constitute an 'unreasonable search.' Because the officer made his observations from a public area outside the apartment's curtilage, where any passerby could have looked in, the surveillance was constitutionally permissible.

Yes. When a homeowner invites a guest into their home to engage in a common endeavor, that guest shares the host's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. The sanctity of the home is a core Fourth Amendment value, and the majority's decision undermines the security of both guests and the host, who now risks her own privacy by inviting others in. The logic of Minnesota v. Olson, which protected overnight guests, should extend to short-term guests as well, regardless of whether their purpose is social or commercial, licit or illicit.

No, temporary visitors merely present for a commercial transaction do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the host's home because the Fourth Amendment protects people in "their" houses. Respondents were not overnight guests but temporary visitors with no previous connection to the householder, and their visit was purely commercial. They did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, and therefore, any search that may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights.

Yes, when a homeowner invites a guest into her home for a shared endeavor, the guest should have the same protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as the host because a homeowner's right to privacy should extend to the company she chooses to share it with. The illegality of the host-guest conduct does not alter the analysis; Fourth Amendment protection should not be reserved for the innocent only.

I join the majority opinion because it accurately applies our recent case law. However, that case law gives short shrift to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people in "their" houses, indicating that each person has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches in his own house, not the houses of others. The Fourth Amendment's protection of the home has never extended so far as to protect a person in the house of another.

I join the majority opinion, as its reasoning is consistent with my view that almost all social guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their host's home. However, respondents established nothing more than a fleeting and insubstantial connection with Thompson's home, simply using it as a convenient processing station for their drugs. With no meaningful tie or connection to the owner or her expectation of privacy, respondents cannot claim Fourth Amendment protection.

I agree with Justice Ginsburg that respondents can claim Fourth Amendment protection, but I believe the officer's observation from a public vantage point did not violate respondents' rights. Officer Thielen stood outside the apartment's curtilage at a place used by the public from which he could see through the window. The precautions taken by the apartment's occupants would have failed against an ordinary passerby in that location. Under established case law, this was not an unreasonable search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

No, a temporary visitor in a home for a commercial purpose does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches because the Fourth Amendment protects people in "their" houses. Respondents were not overnight guests but temporary visitors with no previous connection to the householder, and their visit was purely commercial. They did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, and therefore, any search that may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights.

Yes, a temporary visitor in a home for a commercial purpose has a legitimate expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches because a homeowner's right to privacy should extend to the company she chooses to share it with. The illegality of the host-guest conduct does not alter the analysis; Fourth Amendment protection should not be reserved for the innocent only.

Minnesota v. Carter

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot