Cited by

A private party cannot violate the constitution, so a search conducted by a private party that would be unreasonable if conducted by law enforcement “will not result in evidence seized being suppressed.” -18 (Minn. 1990).

These constitutional protections act “as a restraint upon the activities of the government .” State v. Buswell , (emphasis added).

These constitutional protections act “as a restraint upon the activities of the government.”2 (emphasis added).

see also State v. Hodges , –16 (Minn. 1979).

(“If in the light of all the circumstances of the case the private individual must be regarded as having acted as an instrument or agent of the state when conducting the search, the search is subject to Fourth Amendment constraints.” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Buswell , , 618 (Minn. 1990).

I. The state argues for the first time on appeal that the police officer’s warrantless entry into appellant’s business was lawful because it was “instigated by and done for the 4 benefit of private parties.” -18 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that a private search, even if unreasonable, does not compel suppression of evidence “because there is no constitutional violation”).

(citing Skinner v. United States, 489 U.S. 602, 614, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 1411 (1989)).

Under the test this court adopted in State v. Buswell, we determine whether a private individual acts as an instrument or agent of the government in conducting a search by examining “(1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the search and (2) whether the search was conducted to assist law enforcement efforts or to further the private party’s own ends.” (citing United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1981)).