M.D.Pa.: Status as “protector” of home although not occupant or guest not enough for standing

Defendant’s creative argument that he was a “protector” of the home although he wasn’t the owner or occupant and was only an occasional guest is rejected for the day in question. “Royal argues that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy because a ‘spectrum of possessory interests’ exists under Third Circuit jurisprudence.” But not enough. United States v. Royal, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212861 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 3, 2021)*:

Royal argues that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy because a “spectrum of possessory interests” exists under Third Circuit jurisprudence. (See Doc. 89 at 11 (citing Rose, 613 F. App’x at 129)). In support of this theory, Royal notes that officers “believed they were entering [] Royal’s home,” that Royal brought food to Marshall and assisted her with childcare, and that he ‘was a protector of the home’ because he kept people off Marshall’s porch. (Id.) The sole case cited by Royal in support of this position, however, declined to recognize Fourth Amendment rights ‘on the spectrum between ‘overnight guest’ and ‘merely present with the consent of the householder.’” See Rose, 613 F. App’x at 129. We too decline to break new Fourth Amendment ground based on Royal’s purported status as a “protector” of the front porch. Royal’s connection with 1332 Susquehanna Street did not rise to the level of an overnight guest. See Olson, 495 U.S. at 98-99. Royal could only enter the residence “with the consent of the householder,” see Carter, 525 U.S. at 90, and on the day in question, he lacked even that consent. In light of the above analysis, the court concludes Royal lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in 1332 Susquehanna Street, and we will deny the motion to suppress. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 & n.12. In the exercise of caution, we will address alternative grounds for the court’s decision.”