Failure to prove guest status was fatal to standing claim

The defendant alleged standing in his motion to suppress, but he carried the burden of proof on that claim, and he failed to prove that he was a guest. Merely spending the night once is not enough. The search warrant, however, named him as a person to be searched, so he had standing as to his own person [essentially as a matter of law]. United States v. Rubio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57570 (D. Idaho August 7, 2007):

The Defendant has failed to establish that he was in fact an overnight guest at the Culdesac home. United States v. Armenta, 69 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1995) (“bald assertion that he was an overnight guest … is not sufficient to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house.”). Even if the Defendant did stay one night in the residence, that fact alone is insufficient to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home. Accordingly the Court finds the Defendant has failed to establish that he possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home. The search warrant, however, also directs that officers were allowed to search the person of the Defendant. The Defendant clearly has standing to challenge the search of his own person. As such, the Court will consider the validity of the warrant.

There is no expectation of privacy in information held by an internet provider that is not itself a communication. United States v. Standefer, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57768 (S.D. Cal. August 8, 2007):

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the evidence collected by the Government from e-gold, including the time and date of Plaintiffs transactions through his e-gold account, his e-gold account number and the account number of the parties with whom he was transacting business, the IP addresses from where the transactions were sent, the amounts paid, and memos documenting the purposes of the transactions, because Plaintiff voluntarily revealed that information to e-gold. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 40 F.3d at 962-63 (“Where an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights are not implicated, obtaining the documents does not violate his or her rights, even if the documents lead to indictment.”). Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion to suppress the evidence obtained on the basis of evidence the Government received from e-gold.

There was probable cause for issuance of a telephonic search warrant based on the officer’s declaration prepared immediately thereafter. In any event, the good faith exception would save it. United States v. Alvarez-Rodriguez, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57664 (D. Nev. March 28, 2007).