Ignorance is bliss
The question presented in this case was whether the police violated the Court Amendment when, during their execution of a warrant to search a home, they searched a purse that belonged to a guest at the home. The trial court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Noting that the police at the time of the search did not know to whom the purse belonged, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that, because the police’s search of a guest’s purse, during their execution of a premises warrant, was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Affirmed.
State v. Molnau, A16-0330, Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Attorney Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Commentary: With all due respect, it has been previously decided that a guest of a home being searched pursuant to a warrant cannot be searched. So, based on precedent, this ruling should have been reversed. Moreover, we should not be encouraging and rewarding ignorance. Further, ignorance is too easily claimed. The contents of the purse simply should have been suppressed and the Fourth Amendment honored and enforced.