The officers apparently recognized that reaching into a suspect's pants and about his genitalia on a public street was inappropriate–as attested by Agent Olson at the suppression hearing. Recognizing this, the Minneapolis officers moved him to a less public location. But while perhaps less public, their precinct parking lot cannot be considered private.

This search occurred during daylight hours. Regardless of vegetation growing on a surrounding fence (and the Court recognizes that autumn's leaf-drop occurs far earlier than October 25 in the city of Minneapolis), the parking lot is bordered by residential housing. It can be seen and observed by passers-by as well as the occupants of those homes. While the officers denied the presence of observing civilians in the area, the immediate absence of civilian on-lookers is not conclusive when determining the degree of privacy in a particular locale. Courts have recognized that merely being "subject to viewing by ... the public" diminishes the degree of privacy. Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 361 (4th Cir. 2001).

[Cross-linked to www.fourthamendment.com.]