State v. Johns, C9-95-1765
| Decision Date | 11 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. C9-95-1765,C9-95-1765 |
| Citation | 569 N.W.2d 180 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Melvin JOHNS, Petitioner, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
John M. Stuart, Minnesota State Public Defender by Bradford Colbert, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, for Appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Minnesota Attorney General, St. Paul, James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney by Phillip D. Prokopowicz, Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Hastings, for Respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
The defendant, Melvin Johns, is a co-defendant of Wayne Thomas Carter. The facts and legal issues are identical in both cases.
Based on our reasoning in the companion case of State v. Carter, 569 N.W.2d 169, 178-179 (Minn.), the decision of the court of appeals is reversed.
For the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Carter, I respectfully dissent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carter
...119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998), the judgments of this court in State v. Carter, 569 N.W.2d 169 (Minn.1997), and in State v. Johns, 569 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1997), are hereby vacated. The judgment of the court of appeals in State v. Carter, 545 N.W.2d 695 (Minn.App.1996), is affirmed. The......
-
Minnesota v Carter, 971147
... ... No. 97 1147 ... MINNESOTA, PETITIONER v. WAYNE THOMAS CARTER ... MINNESOTA V. MELVIN JOHNS ... [December 1, 1998] ... Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court ... 91 (1990), Carter and Johns were not overnight social guests but temporary out-of-state visitors, they were not entitled to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment against the ... State v. Johns, No. C9-95-1765 (Minn. Ct. App., June 11, 1996), App. D-1, D-3 (unpublished) ... A divided Minnesota Supreme ... ...
-
MINNESOTA v. CARTER
...to bring [their] motion to suppress the evidence gathered as a result of Thielen's observations." 569 N. W. 2d, at 176; see also 569 N. W. 2d 180, 181 (1997). Based upon its conclusion that respondents had "standing" to raise their Fourth Amendment claims, the court went on to hold that Thi......