E.D.N.Y.: One can have standing in stuff put in a storage unit of another

Defendant could have standing in a storage unit she had another person rent to store her records and stuff. A hearing is required. United States v. Bronfman, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49508 (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 26, 2019):

At a minimum, she retained her Fourth Amendment interest in her personal documents. They did not cease to be her property because she entrusted them to Wisdom Systems, a bookkeeping company, in the same way that persons can retain interests in personal property stored in their employer’s premises or in other people’s homes. See Hamilton, 538 F.3d at 168-69 (collecting cases); cf. Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2228 (suggesting that defendants may retain expectations of privacy when businesses are “bailees or custodians of [defendants’ personal] records, with a duty to hold the records for the defendants’ use”). For example, the Second Circuit has found that a public employee had an expectation of privacy in his office computer because his employer did not have “a general practice of routinely conducting searches of office computers” and had not given him “notice that he should have no expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer.” Leventhal, 266 F.3d at 74. The Supreme Court has found that a doctor had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his desk and file cabinets because they were assigned exclusively to him, he did not share them with anyone, and over the course of 17 years other employees had never accessed them. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 717-18, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987). Similarly, Bronfman had an expectation of privacy in her personal documents because she did not have notice that anyone would search the contents of containers in a locked storage unit.3

More difficult is the question of whether, as the sole owner of Wisdom Systems, Bronfman has a Fourth Amendment interest in its storage unit or its business materials, some of which were entrusted to Wisdom Systems by other individuals and companies. (See Bronfman Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Shareholders of a corporation cannot “vicariously assert the corporation’s Fourth Amendment rights.” United States v. Triumph Capital Group. Inc., 211 F.R.D. 31, 54 (D. Conn. 2002) (citing, inter alia. Lagow v. United States, 159 F.2d 245, 246 (2d Cir. 1946)). To challenge a search of corporate premises or records, they must establish a personal and reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or item searched. United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir. 1990); Triumph Capital, 211 F.R.D. at 54. “The question whether a [person] has a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge a search of business premises focuses principally on whether he has made a sufficient showing of a possessory or proprietary interest in the area searched.” Chuang, 897 F.2d at 649. “The greater the degree of exclusivity and control over a work area, and the more time a defendant spends there, the more likely [Fourth Amendment] standing is to be found.” United States v. Hamdan, 891 F. Supp. 88, 94 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted).

To resolve this question, the court needs more information about both Wisdom Systems and the storage unit. …