Minnesota v. Olson

The Olson decision was a stunning affirmation of privacy rights by a Court that usually sided with law enforcement rights. The case was decided on the same day as an identical case in which the Court reached a contrary conclusion. In New York v. Harris (1990) police officers made a warrantless arrest of a man in a home and the man made inculpatory statements shortly after the arrest. According to a majority of the Court in Harris, the arrest was not unreasonable and the statements were admissible at trial. In the Olson opinion, the majority distinguished the Harris case by noting that the state of Minnesota had insisted that the statements made by Olson were fruits of the arrest. In the Harris case, the state of New York argued that the statements made by the defendant were not the result of the warrantless arrest. This is an expression of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, a rule that prohibits the use of evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. Thus, when police officers, without a warrant, enter the home of a person whom they have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, statements later made by that person can in fact be used in court: the only difference between the Olson case and the Harris case was the failure of Minnesota's lawyers to claim that the statements made by Olson were not actually fruits of the warrantless arrest.