Category Archives: Standing

M.D.Fla.: Borrower of a car has standing to challenge its search

Following cases from other circuits, since this circuit hasn’t ruled, the borrower of a car has standing to challenge its search. The traffic stop was justified, and reasonable suspicion developed thereafter. United States v. Baker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73856 … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Borrower of a car has standing to challenge its search

CA3: Social guest without belongings on premises for day lacked standing; leaving open standing question for better facts later

Defendant was on the premises of another when the search occurred, but he was a social guest at the moment, and not an overnight guest with stuff there. The case law grants higher standing to an overnight guest. While it … Continue reading →

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on CA3: Social guest without belongings on premises for day lacked standing; leaving open standing question for better facts later

N.D.Ga.: Def’s failure to respond to gov’t’s questioning his standing was waiver

Defendant has the burden of establishing standing. At the hearing, the government contested standing, and defendant didn’t respond or brief it. Therefore, standing was waived. United States v. Tolbert, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71047 (N.D.Ga. April 30, 2015).* Probable cause … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Def’s failure to respond to gov’t’s questioning his standing was waiver

W.D.Pa.: Distancing oneself from ownership and control over the vehicle searched “effectively has eviscerated his ability to challenge the warrantless search of it.”

Defendant’s distancing himself from ownership and control of the vehicle searched by the government “effectively has eviscerated his ability to challenge the warrantless search of it.” He has no standing to suppress what his wife had. United States v. King, … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Distancing oneself from ownership and control over the vehicle searched “effectively has eviscerated his ability to challenge the warrantless search of it.”

D.Utah: Defendant doctor who sold 95% of practice had no standing in the records of the clinic

The search warrant here was for medical records of a clinic and in storage. The defendant doctor who filed the motion to suppress sold the clinic and kept a 5% share. Records were in storage, too. The court concludes that … Continue reading →

Posted in Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.Utah: Defendant doctor who sold 95% of practice had no standing in the records of the clinic

NJ: No per se rule on no standing in a stolen vehicle; knowledge required

The court declines to adopt a per se rule that occupying a stolen vehicle means no standing. The defendant’s knowledge is integral to that question, and the case is remanded for that finding. State v. Taylor, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on NJ: No per se rule on no standing in a stolen vehicle; knowledge required

M.D.Pa.: Giving cell phone to another for use in drug deals is waiver of reasonable expectation of privacy

Giving one’s cell phone over to another to use for drug dealing was a loss of any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Brewer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62260 (M.D.Pa. May 12, 2015):

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Giving cell phone to another for use in drug deals is waiver of reasonable expectation of privacy

CA3: Three connected cases

When the officer went to an apartment in response to a shots fired call, and defendant came running out knocking the officer over, that was reasonable suspicion to detain him. The crack in his hand was dropped. United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: Three connected cases

D.Md.: When a business is in receivership, the receiver is the one with standing

Defendant lacked standing because the receiver of the business was the only one with standing. United States v. Cohen, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60840 (D. Md. May 7, 2015) (Treatise § 12.52 n.1). A drug dog’s alert on the passenger … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.Md.: When a business is in receivership, the receiver is the one with standing

TX7: Riley applied to cell phone search incident where it came down between trial and appeal

Search incident cannot support a cell phone search under Riley. Riley came down between trial and appeal, so it applies here because the issue was preserved. Carter v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4271 (Tex. App. – Amarillo April 27, … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Search incident, Standing | Comments Off on TX7: Riley applied to cell phone search incident where it came down between trial and appeal

D.Mass.: USPS tracks persons tracking suspicious packages by their IP addresses

This mere bailee didn’t have any right to control the package that was shipped, and he thus didn’t have standing to challenge its search, at least recognizing that some bailees might with better facts. More importantly, the government tracked the … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Probation / Parole search, Standing | Comments Off on D.Mass.: USPS tracks persons tracking suspicious packages by their IP addresses

C.D.Cal.: Merely hiding something in a car doesn’t create standing

Defendant was accused of breaking into USPS mailboxes and stealing mail. He failed to show standing in the car he was stopped in. He claimed to own it, having just bought it from a guy whose name he didn’t know, … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Merely hiding something in a car doesn’t create standing

D.Ariz.: There is standing in a borrowed cell phone; no justification here for search

Defendant’s denial of ownership of a cell phone in his car was not determinative of his standing to challenge its search. Actually, he was loaned the phone because his was broken, and he was legitimately in possession. The question posed … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: There is standing in a borrowed cell phone; no justification here for search

NC: If def was an innocent owner of a stolen cell phone, he’d have standing; remanded because no findings on that

Defendant had a cell phone removed from him in a search incident that was searched without a warrant. It was determined that the phone was stolen. Defendant asserted an innocent owner defense that the trial court did not resolve, and, … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Standing | Comments Off on NC: If def was an innocent owner of a stolen cell phone, he’d have standing; remanded because no findings on that

OH12: If you’re home with meth out back, don’t leave the TV on loud and ignore the knock-and-talk

The officer goes to the front door to do a knock-and-talk about methamphetamine production and the front window was open and the TV was on “really loud.” When nobody answered the door, it was reasonable to go to the back … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Probation / Parole search, Standing | Comments Off on OH12: If you’re home with meth out back, don’t leave the TV on loud and ignore the knock-and-talk

ID erroneously puts burden of proof on driver in DL suspension cases to prove stop was not valid

In DL suspensions in Idaho, the burden is on the driver to show a lack of justification for the stop, not on the state to prove that it was valid. “The hearing officer properly concluded that Wernecke failed to prove … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on ID erroneously puts burden of proof on driver in DL suspension cases to prove stop was not valid

D.Utah: A commercial vehicle inspector without state arrest authority could still detain under the Fourth Amendment

Defendant stopped his truck at a weigh station, and a computer check was run on him. It turned out there was an order of protection between him and his passenger, a minor. The commercial vehicle inspector could detain him under … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.Utah: A commercial vehicle inspector without state arrest authority could still detain under the Fourth Amendment

CA10: Standing to challenge a wiretap doesn’t translate to standing to challenge a search of somebody else’s car based on the wiretap

Standing to challenge a wiretap doesn’t translate to standing to challenge a search of somebody else’s car based on the wiretap. United States v. Ocegueda, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4867 (10th Cir. March 25, 2015). Defendant consented to a patdown … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on CA10: Standing to challenge a wiretap doesn’t translate to standing to challenge a search of somebody else’s car based on the wiretap

CT: No guest standing in grow operation shown by defendant’s slim connection to property

Defendant did not show his own reasonable expectation of privacy in a grow operation he was arrested at in Northeast Connecticut out in the woods. The property belonged to another person, and defendant lived two hours away. There was some … Continue reading →

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on CT: No guest standing in grow operation shown by defendant’s slim connection to property

KS: Social guest has standing in curtilage, not following N.D.Okla

Curtilage is defined by either or both the Dunn factors and Jardines. Here, the residential property was fairly large, and the backyard was found to be curtilage in the trial court but the court of appeals disagreed in an unpublished … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Standing | Comments Off on KS: Social guest has standing in curtilage, not following N.D.Okla