# Minnesota v. Carter *1998 United States Supreme Court decision on Fourth Amendment protection for short-term guests; argued by the Dakota County Attorney with the Minnesota Attorney General on the briefs* *Minnesota v. Carter*, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), No. 97-1147, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It held that short-term commercial visitors in another person's home have no legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.[^1] The case was argued on October 6, 1998, and decided for the State of [[Minnesota]] on December 1, 1998.[^2] The observation at issue took place at an apartment in [[Eagan]], Dakota County. Acting on an informant's tip, an officer looked through a gap in a ground-floor window.[^3] James C. Backstrom, the [[Dakota County Attorney]], argued the case for the State. [[Hubert H. Humphrey III]], [[Attorney General of Minnesota]], was on the briefs.[^2] ## Who James C. Backstrom argued for Minnesota. Humphrey III and Prokopowicz are listed on the briefs.[^2] Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court.[^4] Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stevens and Souter.[^5] ## What The Court ruled that short-term commercial visitors present in another person's home lack a legitimate expectation of privacy there.[^1] The majority concluded that "Any search which may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights."[^4] The State's position prevailed.[^4] In dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote that an invited guest "should share his host's shelter against unreasonable searches."[^5] ## When - **October 6, 1998:** Backstrom argued the case before the Supreme Court, with Humphrey III and Prokopowicz on the briefs.[^2] - **December 1, 1998:** The Court decided the case for the State, with Rehnquist writing for the Court and Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter in dissent.[^2][^4][^5] ## Where The apartment was in Eagan, in Dakota County, Minnesota. The officer watched it through the gap in the ground-floor window for several minutes.[^3] Because the holding is a Supreme Court precedent, it applies nationally, although the observation itself took place in Dakota County.[^1][^3] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue record files the case in its Dakota County package as entries AI-Dakota-008 and AI-Dakota-009. It pairs the case with the March 2025 presidential action *Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos*.[^6] That record gives the decision as a 5–4 vote for the State.[^6] The opinion entry in the pack lists a three-justice dissent (Ginsburg, joined by Stevens and Souter).[^5] The record assembled here does not establish the vote count beyond those two entries.[^2] ## Notes [^1]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Minnesota v. Carter*, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (decided Dec. 1, 1998) — holding that short-term commercial visitors in another person's home have no legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/83/ [^2]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Minnesota v. Carter*, No. 97-1147 (argued Oct. 6, 1998; decided Dec. 1, 1998) — establishes the argument and decision dates; records "James C. Backstrom argued" and Humphrey III and Prokopowicz "on briefs." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/83/ [^3]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Minnesota v. Carter*, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) — establishes the facts: an Eagan, Dakota County apartment, an informant's tip, and an officer's observation through a gap in a ground-floor window for several minutes. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/83/ [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Minnesota v. Carter*, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (opinion of the Court, Rehnquist) — establishes the holding for the State: "Any search which may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/83/ [^5]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Minnesota v. Carter*, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Stevens and Souter, JJ.) — establishes the dissent and its language that an invited guest "should share his host's shelter against unreasonable searches." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/83/ [^6]: The White House, *Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos* (March 2025) — the presidential action that the project's at-issue entries AI-Dakota-008 and AI-Dakota-009 pair with the case. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/stopping-waste-fraud-and-abuse-by-eliminating-information-silos/