Illegal Search and Seizure Leads to Rescission of Revoked Driver's License

Petitioner vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, August 3, 2009
Argued to the court by John Arechigo

On March 15, 2009, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Petitioner, Ms. Peterson, was arrested in her boyfriend's home in Eagan, MN for an alleged hit and run accident. Ms. Peterson had allegedly been involved in an accident and had fled the scene. Witnesses reported to Eagan police officers that the suspect vehicle had driven into the garage of a private residence.

Several law enforcement officers arrived on scene and approached the front door while several other officers entered the gated backyard. Upon answering the door, the homeowner indicated to the officers that Ms. Peterson was not in the home. The officers at the front door asked for permission to search the residence, but were told by the homeowner that they needed a warrant if they wanted to search his home.

Meanwhile, one of the officers in the home's backyard approached the ground-level window, which was located under a porch that extended 10 feet over the lower level of the home and stood about four to five feet high. Once at the window, the police officer admitted to standing about a foot from the window, shining his flashlight into the residence. The officer noticed Ms. Peterson lying on the basement floor, and radioed her location to the officers in the front of the home. The officers then entered the home, proceeded downstairs, and arrested Ms. Peterson. Ms. Peterson was ultimately charged with Second Degree DWI - Test Refusal, Third Degree DWI, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.

All of the officers testified that they did not have a search warrant for any of their activities at the residence. There were no reports of injury and none of the officers pursued the suspect vehicle from the scene.

The court found that Ms. Peterson was a social houseguest in the home and was therefore entitled to a legitimate expectation of privacy under Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990). The court further found that no consent was given to enter the interior of the home or to enter the backyard and shine a flashlight into the windows below the porch. Finally, the court found that no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless search and there was no reason to believe that immediate entry into the house was necessary without a warrant.

Because the entry into the basement and seizure of Ms. Peterson without a warrant violated her constitutional rights to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, the court rescinded the revocation of Ms. Peterson's driving privileges.