N.D.Ind.: Steagald only applies to entries into dwellings of third parties and not the curtilage

Steagald only applies to entries into dwellings of third parties and not the curtilage. United States v. Mackin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156888 (N.D.Ind. Nov. 14, 2016):

… However, because the “the narrow issue before [the Court was] whether an arrest warrant—as opposed to a search warrant—[was] adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant, when their homes are searched” id. at 212 (emphasis added), the case does not help the Defendant. Under Steagald’s holding, if officers enter a third party’s residence to effect an arrest, “the third party herself may have a Fourth Amendment claim against the officers.” United States v. Jackson, 576 F.3d 465, 468 (7th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Agnew, 407 F.3d 193, 196 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Steagald protected the interests of the third-party owner of the residence, not the suspect himself.”); United States v. Kaylor, 877 F.2d 658, 663 n.5 (8th Cir. 1989) (“Steagald addressed only the right of a third party not named in the arrest warrant to the privacy of his or her home. This right is personal to the homeowner and cannot be asserted vicariously by the person named in the arrest warrant.”).

“A defendant cannot assert a privacy interest on behalf of someone else.” United States v. Mendoza, 438 F.3d 792, 795 (7th Cir. 2006). “[D]efendants charged with crimes of possession may only claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule if their own Fourth Amendment rights have in fact been violated.” United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 85, 100 S. Ct. 2547, 65 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1980).

Additionally, it bears noting the police did not actually enter the residence. The Defendant argues that the prohibition includes the curtilage of the home, but does not provide any analysis to suggest that the facts of this case would reveal that the curtilage had been invaded. Even if the police entered such an area of protected privacy, it was not the Defendant’s privacy interest that was at stake. The Defendant is not in the category of persons who are protected by the holding in Steagald. The Defendant’s Motion does not present a substantial claim for which disputed issues of material would impact the outcome. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is necessary for resolution of the Defendant’s Motion.