Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Minnesota

Looking in the desk drawer was probably a violation of the arrestee's rights, but it would not be under some circumstances. For example, if the apartment is not the arrestee's residence (in other words, he was just visiting at the time of the arrest) then searching the desk drawer would have violated the occupant's rights but not the arrestee's.

Assuming that the drawer search violated the arrestee's rights, he may well be able to get the contents of that drawer excluded from evidence. Here again, though, there may be reasons why it would get in. For instance, if the authorities can show that they inevitably would have found the evidence anyway -- perhaps because something they legitimately found would have led them to immediately seek a search warrant -- then the evidence can be used at trial.

Even in the most egregious circumstances, though, an improper search would not give the arrestee blanket immunity from charges in the future based upon the same evidence. The interests of justice would not be served by such a rule. If the evidence was a stash of counterfeit money and the arrestee was later caught trying to spend it, why should a prior invalid search prevent him from being charged? The argument would be a good one if the second arrest stemmed from the invalid search -- for instance, if the police caught him only because they were watching him due to what they had found. But if there is no connection between the violation and the subsequent arrest, there is no reason to let the arrestee go free a second time.

The arrestee should get a lawyer right away and discuss the details of his case with her.