Category Archives: Standing

D.Me.: Byrd doesn’t confer standing in the other car in a caravan

Byrd does not confer standing in a rented car part of a two-car caravan where defendant didn’t rent the other car and wasn’t even in it. United States v. Beauregard, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106904 (D. Me. June 26, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on D.Me.: Byrd doesn’t confer standing in the other car in a caravan

MS: No passenger standing in car despite well-secreted drugs

Defendant argued he had standing in a car because he was more than a mere passenger because of how the drugs were hidden and “because ‘[h]e had access to parts of the car that were not normally accessible to a … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Standing | Comments Off on MS: No passenger standing in car despite well-secreted drugs

MN: Search of rented room in single family dwelling was reasonable under SW; it wasn’t apparent it was rented

In a stipulated evidence suppression hearing, defendant did not preserve the issue he presents for appeal. Going to the merits anyway, defendant claimed that his rented room in what was, for all appearances, a single family dwelling was reasonable. The … Continue reading

Posted in Scope of search, Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on MN: Search of rented room in single family dwelling was reasonable under SW; it wasn’t apparent it was rented

ME: No standing in co-conspirator’s CSLI even when they were tracked together

Defendant lacked standing to contest the CSLI acquisition of his co-conspirator’s cell phone when the police were looking for both. The same rule applies to his Fourth Amendment claim and his claim under Maine’s Electronic Device Location Information Act. State … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Border search, Cell site location information, Standing | Comments Off on ME: No standing in co-conspirator’s CSLI even when they were tracked together

PA: ID made as a result of warrantless search suppressed, but that which was seen before may be testified to

An officer’s identification made wholly as a result of a warrantless search renders that identification tainted and inadmissible. If, however, eyewitness identification of a defendant occurred prior to illegal conduct by law enforcement may be admissible, if based on observations … Continue reading

Posted in Independent source, Standing, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on PA: ID made as a result of warrantless search suppressed, but that which was seen before may be testified to

M.D.Ala.: Sole witness on standing isn’t believable because of prior inconsisent statement

The witness on standing gave two inconsistent versions: under oath and to the police and the court cannot credit her. “Importantly, Defendant has offered no proof, other than Ms. Harris’s testimony, that he was an overnight guest in the Apartment. … Continue reading

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Sole witness on standing isn’t believable because of prior inconsisent statement

N.D.Cal.: 41-day delay from seizure to search of a cell phone wasn’t constitutionally unreasonable on these facts

41-day delay between seizure of cell phone and its search, while not good, wasn’t constitutionally unreasonable under all the circumstances, primarily because defendant was in custody and couldn’t use the phone anyway, so it didn’t intrude on his possessory interests. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Emergency / exigency, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: 41-day delay from seizure to search of a cell phone wasn’t constitutionally unreasonable on these facts

D.Me.: False name justified extending traffic stop for dog sniff

“The dog sniff began roughly 12 minutes and 45 seconds into the traffic stop. At that point, Martin had provided two driver’s licenses that spelled his name differently and had verbally provided a separate birth date that did not match … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.Me.: False name justified extending traffic stop for dog sniff

W.D.La.: Shipping a FedEx package under an assumed name to an assumed name did not deprive either of standing

The court finds standing in a FedEx package that had a fictitious name of both sender and recipient. A dog sniff of the package gave probable cause. United States v. Goodin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95071 (W.D. La. May 20, … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Shipping a FedEx package under an assumed name to an assumed name did not deprive either of standing

S.D.Fla.: Govt had objective good faith belief def consented to search through his lawyer

The government had an objective good faith belief that the defendant in jail consented to a search of a storage unit through his lawyer. The lawyer was asked about whether the officers could have consent or get a search warrant, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Apparent authority, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Govt had objective good faith belief def consented to search through his lawyer

OH6: Def doesn’t have standing to challenge search of another that led to PC for his SW

Defendant claimed that part of the facts of probable cause in the affidavit for his search warrant shouldn’t have been considered because of an illegal search of another. He doesn’t have standing to contest that search, and it can be … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Standing | Comments Off on OH6: Def doesn’t have standing to challenge search of another that led to PC for his SW

C.D.Ill.: Issue preclusion doesn’t fairly apply to officers in § 1983 case after suppression in state court

Issue preclusion would not be applied to preclude defendant officers from litigating the legality of a search that defendant prevailed upon in state court. Applying state law on issue preclusion, it would be unfair to apply it to officers who … Continue reading

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Issue preclusion doesn’t fairly apply to officers in § 1983 case after suppression in state court