A Social Fourth Amendment: Why Houseguests Should Not Be Stripped of Constitutional Protection

Blog Post | 110 KY. L. J. ONLINE | April 6, 2022

A Social Fourth Amendment: Why Houseguests Should Not Be Stripped of Constitutional Protection

By: Ryan Roark, Staff Editor, Vol. 110

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.”[1] Although current case law is vague regarding Fourth Amendment protection to social guests, the gathering of friends and family is sacrosanct and should be secured from governmental intrusion.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in relevant part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”[2] The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.[3] It is unclear, however, what the extent of this provision is, regarding social guests visiting a home.[4]

Two decisions from the Supreme Court opened the door to this issue. In Minnesota v. Olson, the Court established that “overnight guests” are entitled to Fourth Amendment protection in the homes of their hosts.[5] But the Court subsequently held in Minnesota v. Carter, that houseguests “present for a business transaction” and nothing more, do not enjoy constitutional protection.[6] Neither Court resolved whether social guests who do not stay the night may expect constitutional protection.[7] The Court in Olson highlighted factors pointing to society’s expectation of privacy when staying overnight at a friend’s home, such as travel, family, and the value society places on that time, as well as the particular vulnerability of sleep.[8] While Carter held short-term business guests are different and lack the same expectation of privacy, five Justices agreed with the principle that social guests have sufficient privacy interests in their hosts’ homes to contest the illegal seizure of evidence.[9] 

In the time since Olson and Carter, lower courts have been divided over this issue.[10] Some courts have followed the lead of the separate opinions in Carter and held, as a general rule, that short-term social guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the homes of their hosts.[11] Other courts have restricted the Fourth Amendment’s protections largely to overnight guests.[12] A recent, 2019 case, People v. Ibarguen, provides an opportunity to establish clarity in this discord.[13] In Ibarguen, the defendant was having dinner with friends when police officers suddenly broke into the apartment without a warrant, searched the entire residence, and arrested him.[14] The defense moved to suppress the evidence.[15] Even though the State conceded the search was illegal as it pertained to the homeowner, there was never a hearing.[16] The New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals agreed with the State saying that social guests not staying the night do not have standing—that is, they do not have any legitimate expectation of privacy to challenge a warrantless entry of the hosts’ residence.[17] 

The holding in Iburguen and other lower courts refusing to allow Fourth Amendment protection for houseguests contradicts all previous jurisprudence conveying the sanctity of the home.[18] The home is “ordinarily afforded the most stringent Fourth Amendment protection,” because society has the highest expectation of privacy in a home.[19] That expectation of privacy does not end with friends and family simply because they are “guests” as opposed to “residents.”[20] Under today’s current law, many jurisdictions would provide constitutional protection to an Airbnb guest staying the night but not afford the same protection to family attending a home for a Thanksgiving dinner.[21] Common sense says otherwise. Invitees of a home should not be stripped of constitutional protection in these intimate settings. Nor should simply opening the door to others jeopardize a homeowners’ privacy. The Supreme Court should grant certiorari and resolve the issue by allowing guests and invitees the ability to be heard in a suppression hearing, balancing the interests of the privacy of the home and that of law enforcement.

[1] Katie Pinke, ’All Great Change in America Begins at the Dinner Table’, AG Week (Jan. 15, 2021), https://www.agweek.com/opinion/columns/all-great-change-in-america-begins-at-the-dinner-table.

[2] U.S. Const. amend. IV.

[3] Esther Fleming, What Is the Purpose of the Fourth Amendment?, SidmartinBio (Feb. 7, 2019), https://www.sidmartinbio.org/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-fourth-amendment/.

[4] Search and Seizure-Reasonable Expectation of Privacy-Short-Term Invitees in Private Home, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 265, 271 (1999).

[5] Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96 (1990).

[6] Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 91 (1998).

[7] Search and Seizure-Reasonable Expectation of Privacy-Short-Term Invitees in Private Home, supra note 4.

[8] Olson, 495 U.S at 99.

[9] Carter, 525 U.S at 91.

[10] Search And Seizure--Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy-Short-Term Invitees In Private Home; 27 Baldwin's Ohio Handbook Series 5 (2021).

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] People v. Ibarguen, 178 N.E.3d 917, 921 (2021).

[14] Id. at 919.

[15] Id. at 920.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Elizabeth J. Crisp, Paws Off My Porch: Sniffing Out Florida v. Jardines’ Effect on Drug Dogs And Homes, 59 S. Dakota L. Rev. 109, 110 (2014).

[19] U.S. v. Martinez–Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 561 (1973).

[20] Ibarguen, 178 N.E.3d at 929.

[21] Id. at 928.