In State v. Hess. 2004 SD 60, 680 N.W.2d 314, the Court unanimously held that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend's home such that he could contest the legality of a police search. In coming to that conclusion, the Court noted: According to Professor LaFave, Olson amounts to a per se rule that one's "status as an overnight guest is alone enough to show that he had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable . . . . Yet, it is fair to say that the Olson decision lends considerable support to the claim that shorter-term guests also have standing." Id. The majority writing in Hess strongly supports the proposition that a social guest has an expectation of privacy in the host's home. The Court stated: It is important to note that Carter was a plurality opinion in which Justice Kennedy provided the fifth vote necessary for a majority, writing in a special concurrence that, as a general rule, social guests will have an expectation of privacy in their host's home. Id. at 102, 119 S. Ct. 469 (Kennedy, J., concurring) . Justice Kennedy noted that the defendants in Carter were not social guests but had used the apartment merely as a processing station to prepare drugs for sale. Relying on the specific facts presented in Carter, Justice Kennedy concluded that the defendants were an exception to the rule that social guests will have an expectation of privacy. In summary, Minnesota v. Carter stands for the proposition that "parties who are in a residence for only a few hours, on 'business,' and who have little or no previous relationship with the owner or occupants of the premises do not have standing to contest the search of the premises (as opposed to their personal belongings)." Whitebread and Slobogin, Criminal Procedure, An Analysis of Cases and Concepts 135 (4th ed 2000). (Id.) The Court went on to note: "Following Carter, several decisions have recognized that social guests who fall somewhere between the overnight guest in Olson and a guest simply permitted on the premises have a legitimate expectation of privacy and may mount a Fourth Amendment challenge to searches and seizures. Although it could be argued that this Court in Westerfield previously determined that an occasional guest has no reasonable expectation of privacy in property owned by another, that 1997 decision predated Carter." (Id.)