or use our live chat


Customer Service



Minnesota v. Carter


The defendant and the lessee of an apartment packaged cocaine in the apartment. A law enforcement officer observed this activity by looking through a drawn window blind. The defendant did not live in the apartment, he had never visited that apartment before and his visit only lasted a matter of hours. His singular purpose in being there was to package cocaine. The defendant was arrested for conspiracy to commit a controlled substance crime. He complained that the information that led to his arrest was the product of an unreasonable search.


Whether a visitor enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in a premises visited for commercial reasons?


No. Commercial visitors do not obtain a reasonable expectation of privacy in a premises.


The Supreme Court distinguished the defendant’s presence in this apartment from the social, overnight guests’ presence in Minnesota v. Olson. In Olson, the Court held that a guest staying overnight in another’s home had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The defendant in Carter however, went to the apartment for a business transaction, limiting his presence to a matter of hours. He did not have a previous relationship with the lessee of the apartment, nor did he have a connection to the apartment similar to that of an overnight guest. While the apartment was a dwelling for the lessee, the property was equivalent to a commercial site to the defendant. Lacking a significant connection to the property, the defendant did not have standing to object to the search conducted on that premises.


525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469 (1998)

Subscribe to Updates