CA9: Defendant had standing in his hotel room despite having no REP in a stolen laptop in the room

Defendant had standing to challenge the search of his hotel room, but he did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen laptop he possessed. If the entry into the hotel room is unreasonable, the seizure of the laptop would be, too. United States v. Polequaptewa, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15742 (9th Cir. May 26, 2021).

“Beginning with preservation, defendant has always maintained that she was unlawfully seized. We agree with the state, however, that the particular claim of error that she raises on appeal—that the police unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop, even if they did not unlawfully extend its duration—is unpreserved.” State v. McIntyre, 311 Ore. App. 726, 2021 Ore. App. LEXIS 704 (May 26, 2021).

When police raided defendant’s house, they asked who resided in what room. The answer was not “pedigree information.” That link to child pornography on a computer in the room is suppressed. People v. Rottela, 2021 NY Slip Op 03337, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408 (2d Dept. May 26, 2021).

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Standards of review, Standing, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.