On July 17, 2017, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that a landlord does not have “actual authority” to consent to a search by law enforcement of an area occupied by a tenant. While a landlord does have a limited right of access, they do not have rights of mutual use of the property that would enable them to provide consent to a warrantless search.
In Dotson, a landlord and maintenance technician entered an apartment to fix a leak. Inside the apartment, the landlord observed people in a bedroom, one of whom had a needle up to his arm, and assorted other drug paraphernalia throughout the apartment. The landlord and maintenance technician left the apartment and called the police.
When police arrived, the landlord re-entered the apartment to see if anyone was there. Finding it empty, the landlord told police that they could enter the apartment. After seeing the drug paraphernalia, the officers “froze” the apartment and waited for a search warrant.
While waiting for the warrant, Blake Dotson, an overnight guest at the apartment, buzzed the apartment to be let in. Police buzzed Mr. Dotson in, questioned him, and later arrested him after methamphetamine was found on his person. Mr. Dotson moved to suppress the methamphetamine, arguing, among other things, that law enforcement’s entrance into the apartment was unlawful.
The Court found for Mr. Dotson and reversed his conviction, ruling that while Minnesota Statute § 504B.211, subd. 4(1), (3) (2016) gives property managers limited rights of entry, it does not give them rights of mutual use. Rights of mutual use are what provides someone with “actual authority” to give consent to conduct a warrantless search. State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2003).