Court Opinion

ID: 9648029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:59:46.595724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:05.291734
License: Public Domain

WILSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent based upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 99, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1689 (1990). I believe the distinction made by the majority between the overnight guest in Olson and what the majority *562labels as the “casual visitor” in the Varner home in the case before us will not stand under Olson’s guidance. Whether the appellant here would have stayed longer, and under the majority’s terms, ceased to be a casual visitor, was determined by the conduct of the police, and not appellant. Here, the majority says it finds no precedent that would impute an expectation of privacy for the purposes of standing to an invited guest who is not an overnight guest. I would respectfully suggest that Olson, 110 S.Ct. at 1689, suggests otherwise.