495 U.S. 91, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1990)
On July 18, 1987, a gunman robbed an Amoco gasoline station in Minneapolis and fatally shot the manager.1 Police suspected Joseph Ecker and pursued him to his home, where Ecker was captured after a car chase involving an Oldsmobile.2 Inside the abandoned vehicle, officers discovered a sack of money, the murder weapon, a title certificate referencing Rob Olson, a letter addressed to Roger R. Olson at 3151 Johnson Street, and a videotape rental receipt in Rob Olson's name.3
The following day, a woman named Dianna Murphy contacted police twice, identifying Rob Olson as the driver of the getaway car and providing details about his connections to Louanne Bergstrom and her daughter Julie at 2406 Fillmore Northeast.4 Officers visited the duplex, spoke with Louanne's mother Helen Niederhoffer in the lower unit, and learned that Rob Olson had been staying upstairs.5 Niederhoffer agreed to notify police upon Olson's return, leading to the issuance of a probable cause arrest bulletin at 2 p.m. with instructions to avoid the premises.6
At approximately 2:45 p.m., Niederhoffer informed police that Olson had returned.7 Officers surrounded the house, and a detective telephoned Julie, during which a male voice was heard saying "tell them I left."8 At 3 p.m., police entered the upper unit without permission or a warrant and located respondent Robert Olson hiding in a closet.9 Less than an hour later, Olson provided an inculpatory statement at police headquarters.10
The Hennepin County trial court denied Olson's motion to suppress the statement, which was admitted at trial, resulting in his conviction on charges including first-degree murder.11 The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the conviction.12 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.13
Whether an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the host's home under the Fourth Amendment?14
Capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.15 A subjective expectation of privacy is legitimate if it is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.16 An overnight guest's status alone is sufficient to establish such an expectation.17
Yes. The established facts show that Robert Olson spent the night of the robbery on the floor of the Bergstroms' home with their permission and had a change of clothes with him at the duplex.18 This situation parallels Jones, where the defendant had slept in the apartment as a guest and was legitimately on the premises.19 Society recognizes that an overnight guest seeks shelter and privacy in the host's home precisely because it provides a place where he and his possessions will not be disturbed, and he is most vulnerable when asleep.20
Olson therefore had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the Bergstrom home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, allowing him to challenge the warrantless entry under the Fourth Amendment.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens joined the Court’s entire opinion but added a caveat concerning the discussion in Part II of respondent’s standing to challenge his arrest on federal constitutional grounds.22 He noted that if the Court had concluded that Olson did not have standing as a matter of federal law, the question would then have been presented whether this Court simply should have dismissed the appeal.23 He observed that the Court has no power to prevent state courts from allowing litigants to raise federal questions even though they would not have standing to do so in a federal court.24
Questions of that kind buttress his opinion that the Court grants review in far too many cases in which state courts have protected the constitutional rights of their own citizens.25 He remains convinced that this power should be used sparingly.26 Only in the most unusual case should the Court volunteer its opinion that a state court has imposed standards upon its own law enforcement officials that are too high.27
Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the home to arrest the overnight guest?28
A warrantless intrusion into a home may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence, the need to prevent a suspect's escape, or the risk of danger to the police or to other persons inside or outside the dwelling.29 In the absence of hot pursuit there must be at least probable cause to believe that one or more of the other factors are present. The gravity of the crime and likelihood that the suspect is armed should be considered.30
No. The established facts demonstrate that although a grave crime occurred, Olson was known not to be the murderer but only the driver of the getaway car, the murder weapon had already been recovered from the abandoned Oldsmobile, three or four police squads surrounded the duplex at 3 p.m. on a Sunday with no suggestion of danger to those inside, and it was evident the suspect was going nowhere and would be promptly apprehended if he emerged.31 These facts do not add up to exigent circumstances under the proper legal standard.32
The warrantless entry therefore violated Olson's Fourth Amendment rights, and the Minnesota Supreme Court correctly held that his subsequent statement should have been suppressed.33
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy joined the opinion of the Court with a specific understanding of the discussion in Part III concerning exigent circumstances.34 He interpreted the last two paragraphs of Part III as deference to a state court’s application of the exigent circumstances test to the facts of this case rather than as an endorsement of that particular application of the standard.35 This interpretation permitted him to concur in the result while clarifying that the majority opinion should not be read as approving the state court's specific weighing of the relevant factors.36
With that understanding, he joined the opinion of the Court.37