W.D.Pa.: Def was not an overnight guest, but his connection to the property was substantial, he had a key, and he could come and go at will, so that’s sufficient

On the spectrum of standing from overnight guest to somebody with minimal connection to the premises, defendant was not an overnight guest, but he had a key and pretty much free reign over the premises. The court concludes he had standing. On review of the application for the search warrant, the court concludes that the affidavit showed a fair probability that evidence could be found there. In any event, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Johnson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180227 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2019). As to standing:

In this case, Defendant does not assert, and there is no record evidence, that he was an overnight guest or co-resident of the Residence. Therefore, he does not fall within the well-accepted categories of those who may assert standing over another’s dwelling. Still, the Defendant is much nearer the possessory end of the spectrum alluded to by the Third Circuit in Rose, 613 F. App’x at 129. First, the evidence shows that he was seen at the Residence on an almost daily basis and had access to the Residence via the housekey found on his person. (Tr. at 27:2-4, 63:20-64:8.) Second, unlike Rose, Defendant was not merely a casual acquaintance of the owner—he is the owner’s son. (Id. at 99:13.) Third, it appears that Defendant did have permission to be present without the presence or consent of the owner—his mother—as evidenced by the fact that he was present at the Residence when the search warrant was executed and his mother was not. (ECF No. 40-1, at 3.) Fourth, the Government alleges that Defendant stored property at the Residence in the form of the various items of contraband that are the focus of this case. However, Defendant argues in his other motions that PBP recovered no evidence from the search directly connecting the Defendant to the home. (See ECF No. 41, at 9-10 (discussing the indicia attached as exhibits to the state cell phone warrant).) Further, there is no evidence that Defendant meets any of the other factors from Rose, such as having a possessory interest in the home, the exclusion of others from the property, or his receipt of mail to that address. There is also some evidence that there were other guests with access, namely other members of the Defendant’s family previously seen entering and exiting the Residence. (Tr. at 64:9-15.) Still, the Court concludes that the factors that do apply to the Defendant make for a much more solid standing argument than in Rose, specifically his frequenting of the Residence, his possession of a working key to the Residence, his familial relationship to the owner, and his apparent ability to remain at the Residence without the consent or presence of the owner. Thus, the Court concludes that the Defendant does have standing to challenge the search of the Residence based on the sum total of the record evidence. Considered as a whole, the record shows that his subjective expectation of privacy in the Residence on Renova Street was objectively reasonable. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 n.12.