Without seeking permission, and with weapons drawn, the police entered the home, found Olson hiding in a closet, and arrested him.

Olson's status as an overnight guest was sufficient to show that he had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

The state sought to distinguish the case from precedents where an overnight guest was left alone in the house, had a key to the premises, and could admit or exclude others, but the court found that these were not legally determinative.

The State Supreme Court applied essentially the correct standard in holding that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry: an entry may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, the imminent destruction of evidence, the need to prevent a suspect's escape, or the risk of danger to the police or others; but, in the absence of hot pursuit, there must be at least probable cause to believe that one or more of the other factors were present and, in assessing the risk of danger, the gravity of the crime and likelihood that the suspect is armed should be considered.

The case "addressed an important procedural question in Fourth Amendment litigation: Is the person seeking to challenge the legality of the search or seizure the "victim" of the government activity?