E.D.Tex.: No standing to challenge search of mother’s house where not a guest at time

Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of his mother’s and sister’s house. He lived elsewhere, but he only occasionally spent the night there; he didn’t on the day in question. He was there, but he fled when the police showed, and that was an abandonment of whatever expectation of privacy he had in the premises. United States v. Oliver, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27701 (E.D. Tex. March 2, 2012):

The Court finds that Oliver has no expectation of privacy in the PR 2623 residence. The evidence shows that, at the time of the search, the residence was owned by his mother and sister, but not by him. Oliver lived in a home with his wife in Longview, Texas. Further, Oliver, at most, only sporadically slept at the residence. Additionally, there is no evidence before the Court that on May 1, 2009, when officers executed the search, Oliver was present in the home when the search was conducted. The Government alleges that Oliver was there and fled immediately before the search began. Thus, if Oliver was not present in the home during the search, Oliver cannot claim an expectation of privacy. Further, if as the Government contends, Oliver was present in his mother and sister’s home at the time of the search but fled immediately before the search began, then he abandoned any expectation of privacy he had in the home upon fleeing the premises.

Claimant’s vehicle was stopped for crossing the fog line three times in a mile while being followed. Officers noticed that the truck appeared to be modified while following it. After a dog alert within minutes of the stop, the vehicle was towed to a nearby garage, and they drilled a hole for a fiberoptic scope that revealed plastic wrapped packages. The mechanic figured out how to activate the electrically operated truck bed revealing the cash. After the cash was found not to be drugs, the claimant and his passenger were released six hours after the stop. The stop and search were legal. United States v. One Million, Thirty-two Thousand, Nine Hundred Eighty Dollars in U.S. Currency ($1,032,980.00), 855 F. Supp. 2d 678 (N.D. Ohio 2012).*