(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The record before us and before the trial court does not support the majority’s conclusion, even applying the majority’s criteria, that the searches here were public rather than private.
I agree with the majority that the test, enunciated in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2048, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), and most recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, — U.S. -, -, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1411, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), is whether the private citizen who conducted the search and seizure acted as an instrument or agent of the government. I part company with the majority, however, on the issue of whether the application of their criteria, or any other criteria recognized by case law, establishes that either Gately or his boss, Emerson, acted here as an instrument or agent of Crow Wing County or the State of Minnesota.
The meeting between Emerson and law enforcement personnel, discussing procedures to be followed upon discovery of contraband, was not initiated by the BCA or by the county sheriff; rather, it was held to inform Emerson how to contact a law enforcement officer to take over after Emerson or one of his employees discovered contraband and made a citizen’s arrest *476on the BIR property. The law enforcement personnel attending the meeting gave no instructions as to how searches or arrests were to be made. They did, however, insist that one individual, Emerson, call them in, rather than be subjected to the prospect of being called by any of 60 security guards. On the law enforcement side, one deputy sheriff, Dave Bjerga, was assigned as the individual to be called by Emerson. Bjer-ga, however, was not standing by awaiting calls, but went on performing his regular duties. (In fact, when he was called by Emerson about the searches and arrests here, he was on his way to Long Prairie on another case.) The meeting was the result of Emerson’s legitimate concern, on behalf of his private employer, about the logistics of promptly turning over citizen’s arrestees to a peace officer, both to comply with statutory requirements and to avoid liability for false arrest. The meeting did not constitute the government instigation or participation required to make these “public” searches. See 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 1.8(b), at 178 (2d ed.1987).
BIR had an obvious legitimate interest in avoiding open drug use or drug-induced behavior on its property, something which could jeopardize its continuation in business. BIR initiated entrance-gate vehicle searches to insure that no one entered without having paid for admission, as well as to keep order. The record is devoid of any evidence that BIR’s primary purpose was the assistance of public authorities in the prosecution of persons for drug violations.
Admittedly, Gately’s searches would not have passed fourth amendment muster had they been public searches. However, I can find no authority for assuming a nexus between the unreasonableness of a search and its public or private nature. The fact that Gately engaged in conduct forbidden to a police officer does not make his searches public.
Finally, the fact that seven of Emerson’s 127 employees were moonlighting policemen from other jurisdictions does not bring this case within Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S.Ct. 576, 95 L.Ed. 774 (1951). These security guards are not formally affiliated with the government and have no authority beyond that of an ordinary citizen. We cannot treat them as state agents on the record before us. In referring to Emerson as “a long-time licensed police officer and special deputy,” the majority fails to note that Emerson was a Brainerd police officer, that the BIR is not located in the City of Brainerd, and that Emerson had no authority as a special deputy to make arrests. Neither Emerson nor Gately could lawfully conduct a search or make an arrest except as a private citizen. Nor did either of them hold himself out as a police officer in making the searches and arrests in question.
I find nothing in the majority’s reasoning, or in this record, to convince me that Emerson’s and Gately’s conduct was government-instigated, or that the state or county participated therein. I believe the searches were private searches, not covered by the fourth amendment; I would affirm the judgments of conviction.