Minnesota v. Olson - Oral Argument - February 26, 1990

Minnesota v. Olson

Media for Minnesota v. Olson

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 18, 1990 in Minnesota v. Olson

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 26, 1990 in Minnesota v. Olson

William H. Rehnquist:

We'll hear argument next in Number 88-1916, Minnesota v. Robert Darren Olson.

Anne E. Peek:

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

This case presents two critical and recurring issues under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

First, when does an overnight visitor have a sufficient expectation of privacy in a house to enable him to challenge his arrest there?

The state contends that merely hiding overnight in a place with permission of the owners is not enough to create a privacy expectation.

And secondly, is flight of a dangerous felon believed to be armed an exigent circumstance which justifies a warrantless arrest?

The state contends that it is.

Anthony M. Kennedy:

Now, what's at issue here is a statement that was given at the police station?

Anne E. Peek:

That's correct.

Anthony M. Kennedy:

At the time that he was at the police station, was there not probable cause to hold the prisoner?

Anne E. Peek:

That's correct, Your Honor.

Anthony M. Kennedy:

Well then, how is it that this statement is really related to what occurred in the dwelling in any event?

Anne E. Peek:

Well, the respondent is claiming that his arrest was illegal under the Fourth Amendment and that his statement was a fruit of the illegal arrest.

Anthony M. Kennedy:

Well, there would have been a right, I take it, to let him go for 30 seconds and re-arrest him after he got outside of the dwelling.

Anne E. Peek:

I suppose that's true, Your Honor.

The state, however, has never--

Anthony M. Kennedy:

There's no right to be free from custody once they are in the station house just because there has been an unlawful entry in the dwelling, is there?

Anne E. Peek:

--I'm sorry, Your Honor?

Anthony M. Kennedy:

There is no right to an immediate release at the station house, a release from custody, merely because there has been an unlawful entry into the dwelling, even assuming the entry to the dwelling was unlawful?

Anne E. Peek:

I suppose that's true, Your Honor.

Anthony M. Kennedy:

Well, then, why is it that we really have to reach this issue?

Why isn't this just an admissible statement?

Anne E. Peek:

Well, the state, of course, has always felt that this is an admissible statement because the arrest was legal, and we've never really argued--

Yes, but you don't... but you don't... you don't argue the point that the statement's not tainted in any event.

Anne E. Peek:

--No.

It was never argued below and we've never argued it through the process, Your Honor.

It's also the state's position that this Court would not need to reach the exigent circumstances issue if it ruled that the respondent did not have privacy interest in the home, also, and that's been the state's main contention all along.

Respondent was a getaway driver involved with his co-defendant in an armed robbery of a gas station and the cold-blooded murder of the gas station attendant.

Was respondent's temporary hideout his home?

It's clear that a person has a constitutionally protected right to privacy in one's own home.