CA6: “A criminal may assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment just as well as a saint.”

The government’s apparently straight-faced argument that a criminal has no expectation of privacy when he commits a crime in his own property is rejected. “A criminal may assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment just as well as a saint.” (The government also argued that the defendant became a trespasser because the rent was a little behind even though the landlord had done nothing about it.) United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 2009):

Next, the government contends that society does not recognize Washington’s expectation of privacy as reasonable because he was engaged in criminal activities in the apartment. See Br. Appellant at 31. Although it is certainly true a person cannot acquire an expectation of privacy in a structure that has been legally condemned such that any presence is forbidden, United States v. Whitehead, 415 F.3d 583, 587-88 (6th Cir. 2005), the use of a space for illegal activity does not alter the privacy expectations of a person who would otherwise have standing. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 91 (1998); see also id. at 109-10 (“As the Solicitor General acknowledged, the illegality of the host-guest conduct, the fact that they were partners in crime, would not alter the analysis. … If the illegality of the activity made constitutional an otherwise unconstitutional search, such Fourth Amendment protection, reserved for the innocent only, would have little force in regulating police behavior toward either the innocent or the guilty.”) (Ginsburg, J. dissenting). In light of the fact that Washington had been lawfully residing in the apartment for several months, the notion that drug use or illegal activity eviscerates any right to challenge a search cannot possibly be sustained. A criminal may assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment just as well as a saint.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.