State of Minnesota v. Marvin Russell Larsen

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a conservation officer's warrantless entry into an occupied fish house to conduct a routine license inspection violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The court concluded that occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a fish house and that recreational angling does not fall within the closely regulated industry exception to the warrant requirement. The court affirmed suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the charges.

Holdings

1. An occupant of an occupied fish house has a reasonable expectation of privacy because the structure protects occupants from the elements and may contain facilities for eating, sleeping, and other personal activities.
2. A conservation officer's warrantless entry into an occupied fish house is per se unreasonable and unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution absent express consent or another circumstance justifying entry.
3. Recreational angling from a private fish house is not a closely regulated industry within the meaning of the administrative-inspection exception to the warrant requirement.
4. Minn. Stat. § 97A.215, subdivision 3, must be interpreted to incorporate constitutional protections into its authorization for entry and inspection at reasonable times; the statute itself was not declared unconstitutional.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an occupant of an occupied fish house has a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution.
2. Whether a conservation officer may enter and inspect an occupied fish house without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or articulable suspicion under Minn. Stat. § 97A.215, subdivision 3.
3. Whether the closely regulated-industry exception to the warrant requirement applies to recreational ice fishing and fish houses.
4. Whether the evidence obtained during the warrantless entry and search was properly suppressed.

Disposition

affirmed