M.D.Ala.: Def didn’t show standing but gov’t didn’t raise it, so it’s waived

The court finds on the face of the pleadings that one defendant had no standing to contest the search but goes to the merits because the government failed to assert standing. United States v. Pierce, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93614 (M.D.Ala. July 19, 2016):

In this case, there is no dispute that Lyons, not Pearce, was the driver and owner of the vehicle that was searched. Pearce has not asserted a property or possessory interest in the car, thus he has failed to meet his burden of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trunk in which the cocaine was discovered. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148-149, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978) (Passengers occupying a car they neither owned nor leased have no legitimate expectation of privacy in the trunk or the glove compartment of an automobile.) However, the government has waived the issue of standing by failing to raise the issue and, instead, addressing the merits of Pearce’s Fourth Amendment claims. United States v. Lightbourn, 357 Fed. Appx. 259, 264 (11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the court will address the merits of Pearce’s Fourth Amendment claims.