Minnesota v. Carter

Citation. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373, 67 U.S.L.W. 4017, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8754, 98 Daily Journal DAR 12129, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 5991 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1998)

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

CitationMinnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 7844, 67 U.S.L.W. 4017, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8754, 98 Daily Journal DAR 12129, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 5991 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1998)

Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 7844, 67 U.S.L.W. 4017, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8754, 98 Daily Journal DAR 12129, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 5991 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1998)

Brief Fact Summary. Wayne Thomas Carter, Melvin Johns and Kimberly Thompson were arrested after a police officer observed them through a window bagging cocaine. Carter and Johns moved to suppress the evidence, under the theory that they had Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure; however, the court held this does not apply to individuals who merely visit another’s home.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not extent to visitors to another’s home who do not stay overnight.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

An 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.

View Full Point of Law

Facts. While visiting the apartment of Kimberly Thompson, respondents Carter and Johns were arrested after they were observed, through a gap in the closed blinds of a window, bagging cocaine. Carter and Johns had only been visiting the apartment for a period of about 2.

Create New Group