Document: 495 U.S. 91 110 S.Ct. 1684 109 L.Ed.2d 85 MINNESOTA, Petitionerv.Robert Darren OLSON. No. 88-1916. Argued Feb. 26, 1990. Decided April 18, Syllabus Police suspected respondent Olson of being the driver getaway car used in a robbery-murder. After recovering murder weapon and arresting murderer, they surrounded home two women with whom believed had been staying. When police telephoned told one that should come out, male voice was heard saying, "tell them I left." Without seeking permission weapons drawn, entered home, found hiding closet, arrested him. Shortly thereafter, he made an inculpatory statement, which trial court refused to suppress. He convicted murder, armed robbery, assault. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, ruling sufficient interest women's challenge legality his warrantless arrest, arrest illegal because there were no exigent circumstances justify entry, statement tainted have suppressed. Held: violated Olson's Fourth Amendment rights. Pp. 95-101. (a) status as overnight guest is alone show expectation privacy society prepared recognize reasonable. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 128, 143-144, 99 421, 430-431, 58 387; cf. Jones United States, 362 257, 80 725, 4 697. distinctions relied on by State between this case —that, there, left key premises could go admit exclude others—are not legally determinative. All citizens share hosts will more likely than respect their guests' interests even if guests legal do authority determine who may enter household. 95-100. (b) applied essentially correct standard holding justifying entry: An entry be justified hot pursuit fleeing felon, imminent destruction evidence, need prevent suspect's escape, or risk danger others; but, absence pursuit, must at least probable cause believe other factors present and, assessing danger, gravity crime likelihood suspect considered. This inclined disagree fact-specific application lower court, pointed out that, although grave involved, known murderer recovered; suggestion women; several squads house; it Sunday afternoon; evident going nowhere; came house would promptly apprehended. 100-101. 436 N.W.2d 92, affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. post, p. 101, 102, filed concurring opinions. REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, dissented. Anne E. Peek, Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner. Stephen J. Marzen, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, supporting petitioner, special leave Court. Glenn P. Bruder, respondent. Justice WHITE 1 warrantless, nonconsensual into where Robert issue whether We hold did. 2 * before 6 a.m. Saturday, July 1987, lone gunman robbed Amoco gasoline station Minnesota, fatally shot manager. A officer dispatcher report Joseph Ecker. partner drove immediately Ecker's arriving about same time Oldsmobile arrived. took evasive action, spun control stop. Two men fled foot. Ecker, later identified gunman, captured shortly thereafter inside home. second man escaped. 3 Inside abandoned Oldsmobile, sack money weapon. They also title certificate name Rob crossed secured party, letter addressed Roger R. 3151 Johnson Street, videotape rental receipt dated days earlier. verified lived Street. next morning, Sunday, 19, woman identifying herself Dianna Murphy called said gas killer scene planning town bus. About noon, again, gave her address phone number, named Maria women, Louanne Julie, robbery. caller stated Julie's mother 2406 Fillmore Northeast. detective-in-charge call sent officers check Julie. arrived determined dwelling duplex Bergstrom daughter Julie upper unit but spoke Louanne's mother, Helen Niederhoffer, unit. She confirmed staying upstairs then promised when returned. At p.m., pickup order, "probable bulletin," issued arrest. instructed stay away from duplex. 5 approximately 2:45 Niederhoffer surround it. headquarters house. detective say, left, whereupon p.m. ordered closet. Less hour after headquarters. Hennepin County held hearing denied respondent's motion suppress statement. App. 3-13. admitted evidence trial, count first-degree three counts second-degree On appeal, reversed. 92 (1989). ruled entry,1 illegality suppressed.2 Because admission harmless beyond reasonable doubt, reversed conviction remanded new trial.3 7 granted State's petition certiorari, 493 806, 46, 107 15 (1989), now affirm. II 8 It Payton New York, 445 573, 100 1371, 63 639 (1980), without warrant, though purpose decision protect person magistrate's finding cause. In case, below connection treated like householder. challenges conclusion. 9 Since Katz 389 347, 88 507, 19 576 (1967), has law "capacity claim protection depends . upon claims legitimate invaded place." 143, 430, 387 (1978). subjective " 'one "reasonable," ' id., n. 12, S.Ct., quoting Katz, supra, 361, 516 (Harlan, concurring). 10 argues relationship does satisfy 12 its view "home."4 Aside fact based mistaken premise place one's "home" order there,5 proposed test needlessly complex. further conclude, we do, enough 11 As recognized facts are similar those 697 (1960). Jones, defendant friend's apartment during execution search warrant sought supported "[Jones] testified belonged friend, Evans, given him use it, key, [Jones] himself day cross-examination suit shirt apartment, elsewhere, paid nothing Evans let 'as friend,' slept 'maybe night,' Philadelphia five days." Id., 259, 730.6 13 "legitimately [the] premises," 267, 734. Although premises" rejected too broad, 142-148, 429-433, explicitly reaffirmed factual Jones: 14 "We question conclusion suffered violation personal rights unlawful. think merely stands unremarkable proposition can own so protects unreasonable governmental intrusion 141-142, 429-430. 16 thus guest, much just legitimately premises. 17 emphasizes never whereas owner others. These differences crucial, argued, disturbing while host away, complete dominion over others Rakas, 149, 433. understand however, except only assert "unremarkable proposition," 142, enable free searches seizures. 18 To host's recognizes everyday expectations all share. Staying another's longstanding social custom serves functions valuable society. others' homes travel strange city business pleasure, visit our parents, children, distant relatives town, jobs homes, house-sit friend. many times lives. From either perspective, houseguest guest's seeks shelter precisely provides privacy, possessions disturbed anyone allows inside. most vulnerable asleep cannot monitor safety security belongings. reason spend public places, sleep seek another private sleep, hotel room, Society expects these places telephone booth—"a temporarily whose momentary occupants' freedom reasonable," 517 20 That ultimate inconsistent having privacy. host, willing guest. unlikely confined restricted area asleep, measure prefers, someone wants see meet objection hand, few houseguests invite consulting hosts; latter, despite wishes often accommodating. point guests, entitled If untrammeled power essential protection, adult living parents right subject parents' veto. 21 rooted "understandings permitted society," 144, 431, legitimate, Amendment. III 22 occasion "consider sort emergency dangerous situation, described cases 'exigent circumstances,' search," 583, 1378. requires us make 23 determining existed. observed "a Welsh [v. Wisconsin ], 466 740 [104 2091, 732] [ (1984) persons outside dwelling." N.W.2d, 97. apparently thought Applying standard, state did exist. 24 proper standard. "was car," ibid., already recovered weapon, ibid. "The knew them. Three four Minneapolis Sunday. nowhere. apprehended." Ibid. disturb court's judgment add up circumstances. IV 25 therefore affirm 26 ordered. 27 Chief REHNQUIST BLACKMUN dissent. 28 concurring. 29 While join Court's entire opinion, caveat concerning discussion Part standing federal constitutional grounds. concluded matter law, presented simply dismissed appeal. For courts allowing litigants raise questions court. Secretary Maryland H. Munson Co., 467 947, 970-971, 104 2839, 2854, 81 786 (concurring opinion). 30 Questions kind buttress my grants review far protected citizens. Notwithstanding enlarge state-court judgments, Michigan Long, 463 1032, 103 3469, 77 1201 (1983), remain convinced sparingly. generally Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 689-708, 106 1431, 1440-1450, 89 674 (1986) (dissenting Only unusual volunteer imposed standards enforcement officials high. 31 32 interpret last paragraphs deference endorsement particular With understanding, illegal, determination 95. Hence, judge assumption argued nevertheless illegality. 98. Likewise, oral argument counsel expressly disavowed any fruit Tr. Oral Arg. 4-5. sua sponte applicability York Harris, 14, 1640, (1990), case. remand evidence—statements Ecker obtained showed statement—should suppressed are: (1) visitor some property dwelling; (2) related blood marriage lessor (3) receives mail door; (4) (5) maintains regular continuous presence dwelling, especially sleeping regularly; (6) contributes upkeep monetarily otherwise; (7) substantial length prior arrest; (8) stores clothes (9) exclusive (10) (11) allowed absent; (12) taken precautions develop maintain dwelling. Brief Petitioner 21. Of course, "home," temporary otherwise, enjoy there. "[T]he people, places," 351, 511, sanctuary wherever 359, 515-516. Mr. complain such booth, purposes. Similarly, one-night seizure Olson, spent night robbery floor Bergstroms' permission. change

Category: 0