Applied Procedures / LAWE-2260
Professor Schwint
15 October, 2014
Introduction
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota V. Othoudt, law enforcement officers may not enter or conduct warrantless searches of residences, without consent. Moreover, the police may enter a dwelling, without a warrant, to make a felony arrest if they have probable cause and or exigent circumstances. In this case, if the circumstances of the accident scene had given Deputy Olmanson probable cause to arrest respondent for the offenses he was later charged with, those offenses were charged as misdemeanors (STATE V. OTHOUDT). As of this writing, neither the Minnesota Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever held that exigent circumstances would permit a warrantless entry into a home to arrest for an offense of this level (State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James Howard Klein, 2014). Cases such as this one could possibly jeopardize the privacy protections offered by the Fourth Amendment and create the potential for abusive police practices (Cars, Cops, and Crooks: A Reexamination of Belton and Carroll ). An attempt to expound upon the effects of failing to obtain consent to make a warrantless search of a dwelling is explored.
Case Brief:
State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 1992) * STATEMENT OF THE CASE: This case is an appeal by the State of Minnesota of the trial courts findings of the state’s warrantless search and entry of the Othoudt home, which culminated in the arrest and charges against Richard Othoudt, was in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1 of the Minnesota Constitution. * STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: On Jan. 30, 1990, Sherburne County, Minnesota Deputy Sheriff Olmanson was dispatched to investigate a traffic accident which
