# Minnesota v. Olson

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 18, 1990 · 495 U.S. 91

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431981

## Case

- **Full name:** Minnesota v. Olson
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 18, 1990
- **Citations:** 495 U.S. 91; 58 U.S.L.W. 4464; 110 S. Ct. 1684; 109 L. Ed. 2d 85; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2038
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Kennedy, Marshall, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Stevens, White
- **Cited by:** 1,506 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431981

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding exigent circumstances did not justify a warrantless entry into an upstairs duplex for the purpose of arresting an overnight guest believed to be involved in a murder where the police knew that the suspect was in the upstairs duplex with no suggestion of *369 danger to …
- explaining that “a person may have a sufficient interest in a place other than his home to enable him to be free in that place from unreasonable searches and seizures,” and more specifically that “a houseguest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home”
- finding that a defendant’s status as an overnight guest in the upper unit of a duplex home was sufficient for him to claim a protected privacy interest in the premises, even though he was not given a key or left alone in the unit, and did not pay for his stay
- finding no exigent circumstances when individual was merely driver of getaway car, it was 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, and it was "evident that the suspect was going nowhere; and that if he came out of the house he would have been promptly apprehended"

## Opinion text

Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
I interpret 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, and not as an endorsement of that particular application of the standard. With that understanding, I join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431981. Public record. Not legal advice.