Property Rights and Minnesota v Olson

An exerpt from findlaw.com's account of Minnesota v. Olson.

Police suspected respondent Olson of being the driver of the getaway car used in a robbery-murder. After recovering the murder weapon and arresting the suspected murderer, they surrounded the home of two women with whom they believed Olson had been staying. When police telephoned the home and told one of the women that Olson should come out, a male voice was heard saying, "tell them I left." Without seeking permission and with weapons drawn, they entered the home, found Olson hiding in a closet, and arrested him. Shortly thereafter, he made an inculpatory statement, which the trial court refused to suppress. He was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and assault.

The court was essentially correct in their majority decision that the police violated the right of property of the two women living in the duplex as enumerated in the fourth Amendment without significant cause. I agree with the statement made on findlaw.com that “All citizens share the expectation that hosts will more likely than not respect their guests' privacy interests even if the guests have no legal interest in the premises and do not have the legal authority to determine who may enter the household.” This statement was just as true in Minnesota v. Carter or if the property was a business yet the court has decided otherwise, thus contradicting the ideal of consitency expected from a just rule of law.

I do not agree with the remedy proposed by the court which was “The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Olson had a sufficient interest in the women's home to challenge the legality of his warrantless arrest, that the arrest was illegal because there were no exigent circumstances to justify warrantless entry, and that his statement was tainted and should have been suppressed. “ The police did indeed have a legal warrant for Olson's arrest it was invading and searching the property of the two women that was illegal.

One of the reasons I disagree is that Olson was not the owner/lessee of the house and since he is not he does not have standing. The wrong was committed against the two women and so granting a any type of damages to Olson does not in remedy the wrong did to their right of property. The women in question should be able to sue the police for damages which should be equivalent to the following factors.

1. The average full time Minnesota wage earner earns in the same period of time a burglar would serve in jail for the violation of their right to property
2. The average full time Minnesota wage earner earns in the same period of time a kidnapper would serve in jail for the violation of their duty to protect their guest
3. Multiple counts should be considered as should aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
4. The replacement value of any damage caused by the break-in and inconveniency caused by repairs.
5. The court cost including the cost of the women’s lawyer
6. Any other cost incurred by the illegal police action or its aftermath.

Olson can of course sue the women for failure to protect his right of privacy but such would be a wrongful lawsuit as when he became a fugitive he negated any legal duty they had to protect him . This action by the courts would of course would leave Olsen in jail which would actually satisfy the “establish justice” clause of the Constitution instead of wronging his victims a second time by letting him get off for the police overzealousness. The current system is unconstitutional in that is violates the “establish justice” reason for establishment of The Constitution and that it violates the right to property of the actual owners/lessee’s of the property.