SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Minnesota Supreme Court: Vehicle interior is a ‘public place’ if driven on public roads
Main Page The Lounge Minnesota Supreme Court: Vehicle interior is a ‘public place’ if driven on public roadsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
A Grateful American |
Minnesota Supreme Court: Vehicle interior is a ‘public place’ if driven on public roads... Good. This is a good time to get this matter to the US SCOTUS. The court has enough actual Constitutional supporting judges on the bench to review and rule on the impact on the rights of citizens since Carroll as it has been realized since becoming law. Several of the states have declared the "Castle Doctrine" extends to one while in a POV, as it should. And while Carroll does have merit, I believe like many "provisions of law" can and is(are) abused as there is no such thing as "good cops and bad cops", simply good and bad people, some of whom are employed in law enforcement. My concern is the premise that a person, in their own home, is intoxicated, and possesses a firearm, could be argued to be "a great danger to members of the public", in the case of living in densely populated areas, such as Multi Family Dwellings, following the logic of "Anderson". Anderson had written that, “Because a vehicle is mobile and maybe driven in close proximity to people who are in public places, prohibiting an impaired driver from carrying a pistol on a highway would promote the protective purpose of the statute. But excluding an impaired driver from the reach of the ban would expose members of the public to greater danger.” Bad law, similar to bad wiring, can lead to unintended paths that "power" flows in unintended paths and becomes extremely hazardous and deadly to those whom would be better off without the "power and wiring" at all. Redress of grievances. Put the proper clothes on that law. "the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב! | |||
|
| Member |
| |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
Ridiculous These people are not Americans ____________________________________________________ "I am your retribution." - Donald Trump, speech at CPAC, March 4, 2023 | |||
|
Firearms Enthusiast |
I have a nephew who left Colorado and moved to Minnesota because Colorado wasn't liberal enough. The state is one screwed up place. | |||
|
| Member |
| |||
|
| SIGforum Official Eye Doc  |
It's like California, only with bad weather and mosquitoes. | |||
|
| Member |
In Pennsylvania there used to be the “wingspan” area. Any area within the driver’s reach was subject to search. Unfortunately some Police Officers used that tenant to exceed what the higher courts felt was reasonable. One case in particular, the officers stretched that to include the front hood release to open the engine compartment. As was stated in our law update, “Bad police work makes bad case law.” So, no more wingspan. There’s still exigent circumstance and plain view, but some District Attorneys require a warrant to proceed beyond that. A driver can consent to a search, but I never found it a huge impediment to impound a vehicle and get a warrant. To this day I do not understand why anyone would consent to a search. | |||
|
| My other Sig is a Steyr.  |
So does that mean they would need a warrant if the suspect pulled off of the road and drove on to (any) private property? | |||
|
| Quirky Lurker |
Respectfully, you miss the point. This is not a discussion about whether the search was authorized, it is about what constitutes a public space. Stated in the inverse, it is about what does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The decision says that the car interior is public, that is, with no expectation of privacy, which is contrary to SCOTUS precedent. | |||
|
| His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm.  |
I don't see how this can hold up under scrutiny from a real court. posted by Oscars father
In which order? | |||
|
Political Cynic |
Find the vehicles of all of the ‘justices’ Just grab what you want - it’s all public Make their lives miserable. | |||
|
Member |
Not so bad as one would initially think. Steve Lehto on his YouTube explained it... It is in a very narrow context. Steve asserts it is the same as saying a woman is caring in public if she has it in her purse while walking down the public side walk. Doesn't make the interior of her purse public... The guy was carrying it with him while he was travaling in public down the road, in his car. Doesn't make his car public space. The ruling does not suggest the interior of your car is public space. There would in either case have to be cause to search. He explains it better... LINK Collecting dust. | |||
|
| Husband, Father, Aggie, all around good guy!  |
What has happened to Minnesota? Ridiculous | |||
|
Member |
Does that mean a cop wouldn't need a warrant to search your car? | |||
|
Member |
Thank you!!!! Sigs P-220, P-226 9mm, & P-230SL (CCW) | |||
|
| Member |
egregore: “in which order?” There is a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a motor vehicle under Pa law. (Unless that has been eroded recently) An Officer must first complete the basis for a stop, ie. speeding, equipment violation, and return the driver’s papers.At that point the Officer can ask permission to search. The courts have ruled that a stop constitutes a detention and consent can’t be given if one isn’t free to go. The driver must also be advised that they have the right to revoke consent at any time. You can imagine how volatile the scene becomes when, in the wee hours of the morning on the side of a road, there are multiple passengers to be removed and watched while a vehicle is searched. Many consent searches resulted in a warrant being obtained anyway. I preferred to take the whole process to a physical environment where I had more control and safety. If reasonable suspicion existed to articulate, perhaps it rose to probable cause. “Probable cause being based on the following facts and circumstances…” . May as well get a warrant. Search incident to arrest does not necessarily include the vehicle either. Circumstances vary in each situation. It is easiest to seek consent. It is strongest from a prosecutorial perspective to just get a warrant. | |||
|
| Member |
What happened is the Metro area grew past the tipping point in population where it is now nearly impossible for a Republican to win statewide. The current seven Supreme Court justices were all appointed by Democrat governors. The state GOP has done a terrible job with candidate selection in recent years. As popular as they may be in the party caucus meetings or here on a conservative forum, the hard core MAGA conservative is not going to win in MN. They need to read the room and win instead of losing in fantasy land. | |||
|
| Member |
The thread is drifting a bit, but this is worth answering. Maybe, maybe not. Collins v. Virginia is probably the most on point case. The big questions would be where the vehicle is located, how great of an expectation of privacy is afforded to that place, and whether the person whose rights are in jeopardy has standing in that place. A car parked in a parking lot is almost certainly still subject to a warrantless search. A car parked in a garage attached to a single family home almost certainly requires a warrant because it is within a constitutionally protected space. | |||
|
| Political Cynic |
Walz? | |||
|
| Ammoholic |
That is a twenty minute video. It was brutally clear after the first few minutes that the news reports ridiculously oversimplified the ruling such that one could probably argue journalistic fraud. Oh gosh, the media got it completely and utterly wrong, I am so SHOCKED that I just can’t believe it (NOT!). | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Minnesota Supreme Court: Vehicle interior is a ‘public place’ if driven on public roads
Main Page The Lounge Minnesota Supreme Court: Vehicle interior is a ‘public place’ if driven on public roads© SIGforum 2025