Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Your Car’s Interior Is a Public Space, Raising Second & Fourth Amendment Concerns

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a vehicle’s interior qualifies as a public space when driven on public roads. This decision, reported by Jeff Day of the Star Tribune, stemmed from a case involving Kyaw Be Bee, a St. Paul man arrested in May 2022.

Bee was initially stopped on suspicion of catalytic converter theft, and during a vehicle search, officers found a BB gun under his seat. Because he lacked a permit to carry a firearm in public, he was charged with illegally carrying the BB gun. The case led to a legal debate over whether the interior of a privately owned vehicle constitutes a public place.

Legal Reasoning Behind the Ruling

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anne McKeig, determined that the state’s existing laws already regulate firearm transportation inside vehicles. Because Minnesota law allows firearms in vehicles only under specific conditions – such as being unloaded and stored in a case – McKeig argued that the law implicitly treats a car’s interior as a public space. According to Jeff Day’s reporting, McKeig pointed out that if cars weren’t public places, there would be no need for legal exemptions regarding firearm possession inside them.

A Shift in Privacy Expectations

Legal experts warn that this ruling could have far-reaching consequences. Peter Knapp, a law professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, explained in the Star Tribune that while the ruling was meant to apply specifically to firearm regulations, it could set a precedent that affects other legal areas. Attorney Alicia Granse, of the Minnesota branch of the ACLU, expressed concern that this decision might further erode privacy protections for motorists, who already face fewer search-and-seizure protections than homeowners.

A New Tool for Prosecutors?

Rob Doar, a senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, found the ruling troubling. In an interview with the Star Tribune, he noted that this could give prosecutors more opportunities to argue that a person’s vehicle is a public space in various legal contexts. He suggested that the ruling could be exploited to justify increased vehicle searches and additional firearm-related prosecutions. The ruling, while focused on a BB gun, may have much broader applications.

The Second Amendment Debate

Ed Combs and Kevin Michalowski of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) reacted with strong criticism. In their recent video, they argued that the ruling effectively undermines gun owners’ rights. They raised concerns that this could be part of a broader effort by anti-gun lawmakers to expand restrictions on firearms. According to Michalowski, the ruling opens a “tremendous can of worms” by introducing uncertainty about where individuals can legally carry firearms.

The Fourth Amendment & Search Risks

Another major concern, emphasized in the USCCA video, is how the ruling might expand law enforcement’s ability to conduct searches. Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), police officers can perform “Terry stops,” or limited searches, when they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring. However, Terry stops have traditionally applied to public spaces. If a car’s interior is now a public space, Combs and Michalowski questioned whether this gives police broader authority to conduct vehicle searches without probable cause.

A Legal Framework Without Historical Precedent

Attorney Tom Grieve, in his YouTube breakdown of the case, expressed disbelief at the reasoning behind the ruling. He called it an “appallingly smooth-brained decision,” arguing that no other state has taken such a stance on vehicle interiors. He noted that while all states regulate firearm transportation in some way, none have gone as far as declaring a car to be a public space.

The Risk of Expanding Public Space Definitions

Grieve took issue with the court’s reliance on legislative intent. He pointed out that while Minnesota law outlines specific locations that are not considered public places – such as homes, businesses, and private land – it does not explicitly exclude vehicles. By using this absence as a justification to classify cars as public spaces, he argued, the court made an illogical leap. “If we follow this reasoning,” Grieve warned, “then a person’s backpack, wallet, or even phone could be deemed a public space simply because it exists within one.”

Implications Beyond Firearms

Beyond the Second Amendment, this ruling has significant Fourth Amendment implications. If a car is legally considered a public place, it could mean fewer legal barriers for police searches. This could potentially increase traffic stop searches, especially in communities already subjected to higher levels of policing. The ACLU’s Granse pointed out that law enforcement already enjoys broad discretion in searching vehicles, and this ruling might make it even easier for officers to bypass warrant requirements.

Could This Go to the U.S. Supreme Court?

With the ruling’s potential to disrupt established Fourth Amendment protections, it’s possible that this case – or one like it – could be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Combs, Michalowski, and Grieve all suggested that the decision could face future legal challenges. If higher courts agree that this ruling undermines constitutional rights, they could overturn it or establish stricter limits on how it can be applied.

A Public Backlash in the Making?

Public response to the ruling has been divided. Gun rights advocates see it as an attack on Second Amendment freedoms, while civil liberties groups worry about expanded government surveillance and search powers. With legal experts already dissecting the decision’s weaknesses, it may not be long before a new legal challenge forces Minnesota’s courts to revisit the issue.

A Dangerous Precedent

While the case itself revolved around a BB gun, the ruling has far greater implications. If a vehicle’s interior can be classified as a public space, the next question is: What else can? With no other state taking this approach, Minnesota’s decision stands out as an outlier, one that could redefine privacy, gun rights, and law enforcement powers in unexpected ways. Whether this ruling stands the test of time or crumbles under legal pressure remains to be seen, but for now, its ripple effects are just beginning.