Category Archives: Standing

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

CA5: Byrd doesn’t give the passenger any more standing than he already didn’t have

Byrd doesn’t give the passenger any more standing than he already didn’t have. United States v. James, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15531 (5th Cir. May 24, 2019). “Under our precedent that applied to the stop at issue, the officers’ use … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Standing | Comments Off on CA5: Byrd doesn’t give the passenger any more standing than he already didn’t have

S.D.Tex.: Govt’s showing def’s connection to package showed standing; USPS delay while kind of long wasn’t unreasonable or abnormal

Defendant didn’t testify at the suppression hearing, but the officer’s testimony adequately showed defendant’s standing to contest the search of his package. An alias was used, and the government’s efforts to link him to the package showed his standing. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: Govt’s showing def’s connection to package showed standing; USPS delay while kind of long wasn’t unreasonable or abnormal

ND: Arrangement to pick up his package showed control and standing

Defendant’s arrangement with another person to pick up his package showed his control over the package, and that gave him standing. State v. Gardner, 2019 ND 122, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 130 (May 16, 2019) (quoting Treatise § 3.13). “We conclude … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on ND: Arrangement to pick up his package showed control and standing

E.D.Cal.: No standing in a car rented under false pretenses

Defendant has no standing in a car rented under false pretenses. United States v. Anderson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83157 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2019). Defendant’s arrest justified a search incident of his person. Finding bullets in his pocket justified … Continue reading →

Posted in Search incident, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: No standing in a car rented under false pretenses

ND: Def’s arrangement for another to take possession of his package showed his standing

Defendant’s arrangement with another person to pickup his package showed his control over the package, and that gave him standing. State v. Gardner, 2019 ND 122, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 130 (May 16, 2019) (quoting Treatise § 3.13). “Vigen was not … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on ND: Def’s arrangement for another to take possession of his package showed his standing

E.D.Wis.: Stationary video surveillance of a common area not subject to Carpenter

Stationary video surveillance outside an apartment building of common areas is not at all analogous to Carpenter. “The defendant urges the court to compare his facts to those in Whitaker. Dkt. No. 223 at 9. The defendant argues that a … Continue reading →

Posted in Pole cameras, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: Stationary video surveillance of a common area not subject to Carpenter

NY2: Judge issuing SW had discretion to recuse from suppression hearing

The judge issuing the Facebook warrant in this case was within her discretion in recusing from determining the merits. Besides, there was probable cause, and the search warrant was particular. People v. Grose, 2019 NY Slip Op 03808, 2019 N.Y. … Continue reading →

Posted in Standing, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on NY2: Judge issuing SW had discretion to recuse from suppression hearing

Army: Email address link to CP provided nexus to def’s devices and quarters

Defendant was retired military working as a contractor in Afghanistan. Child pornography was traced to him by his email address. That gave the magistrate issuing the search warrant reason to believe that child pornography would be found on his digital … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Standing | Comments Off on Army: Email address link to CP provided nexus to def’s devices and quarters

S.D.Ohio: Def who left property in sister’s house without plan to ever return lacked standing, and she had apparent authority to consent

Defendant stored property with his sister in her house for extended periods of time. Here, he lacked standing to challenge the search of his stuff in her house, and she had apparent authority to consent to the search. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Def who left property in sister’s house without plan to ever return lacked standing, and she had apparent authority to consent

E.D.Cal.: § 1983 4A prison claim is an attack against his disciplinary proceeding and barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment prison claim is an attack against his disciplinary proceeding and barred by Heck. Lout v. Sidhu, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74550 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2019).* Claimant has no standing to challenge the seizure before … Continue reading →

Posted in Abstention, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: § 1983 4A prison claim is an attack against his disciplinary proceeding and barred by Heck

NY2: “Defense counsel’s equivocal, vague and conclusory statements that defendant had standing to challenge the searches” has no offer of proof or facts

“The court correctly denied, on the ground of lack of standing as well as on the merits, defendant’s motion to controvert two search warrants. Defense counsel’s equivocal, vague and conclusory statements that defendant had standing to challenge the searches of … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Standing | Comments Off on NY2: “Defense counsel’s equivocal, vague and conclusory statements that defendant had standing to challenge the searches” has no offer of proof or facts

M.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t show standing as a guess under Olson

Assuming the search of defendant’s stuff in the house of another was not valid as a parole search, defendant doesn’t even really attempt to show guest standing under Olson. United States v. Shelton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71028 (M.D. Tenn. … Continue reading →

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t show standing as a guess under Olson

MA: Two on CSLI standing

Defendant had standing to challenge CSLI used to track his car when he was a passenger and the driver was using his cell phone. Commonwealth v. Fredericq, 482 Mass. 70 (Apr. 24, 2019). Defendant did not have standing for a … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Standing | Comments Off on MA: Two on CSLI standing