Managerial authority is not enough in a corporation (except for a small one) to have standing to challenge a search of the corporate records. If the affidavit is present at the time of the search, it does not need to be attached to the search warrant for reference to it to be valid. United States v. SDI Future Health, Inc., 553 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2009):

It thus appears that an employee of a corporation, whether worker or manager, does not, simply by virtue of his status as such, acquire Fourth Amendment standing with respect to company premises. Similarly, and notwithstanding the reference to "an independent ... proprietary interest" in Cella, to be merely a shareholder of a corporation, without more, is also not enough. As always, a reasonable expectation of privacy does not arise ex officio, but must be established with respect to the person in question.

. . .

The district court relied on three facts in concluding that Kaplan and Brunk had Fourth Amendment standing: their ownership of SDI, their management of SDI from offices in the building searched, and the security measures SDI took to secure its business records. Our review of relevant precedent indicates that these facts are too broad and generalized to support the district court's conclusion. The security measures that SDI took to ensure the privacy of its business records are relevant only to the standing of the corporation itself, not of its officers. As for Kaplan and Brunk, their ownership and management do not necessarily show a legitimate expectation of privacy. See Hill, 374 F.2d at 873; Cella, 568 F.2d at 1283. Because neither claims to enjoy "exclusive use" of the places searched--that is, the entire SDI office--they each must show a personal connection, along the lines we have drawn out of Anderson, to justify an expectation of privacy.

As to the reference to the affidavit issue:

With respect to the second prong, there appears to be no question that Special Agent Raftery and the search team had copies of the affidavit in their possession when they executed the warrant. Although it is unclear whether each member of the team had his own copy as he conducted the search, the magistrate accepted Special Agent Raftery's representation that "the affidavit was available during the search for reference by any member of the Government's search team." By making the affidavit available, the search team ensured that it "accompanied the warrant" to satisfy the requirements of incorporation. Nothing more is necessary for the affidavit to ensure "that the discretion of the officers executing the warrant is limited." Towne, 997 F.2d at 548 (internal quotation marks omitted).fn10

10 We have long since dispelled any lingering confusion in our case law that the affidavit must be physically affixed to the search warrant. Towne, 997 F.2d at 544-48. We have also clarified that "[t]he documents that are in fact relied upon to serve [the functions of a search warrant] simply are the 'search warrant' for purposes of constitutional analysis." Id. at 548 (addressing the accompaniment requirement). It is true that the magistrate judge questioned how much the search team actually relied on the affidavit to limit its search. As we discuss below, this was in the context of the good faith exception, where the procedural posture in the district court was different. In addition, we have never required actual reliance on an affidavit to meet the second prong for incorporation into a warrant.

SDI argues that the failure of the search team to give a copy of the affidavit to the defendants--which the government concedes--means that the affidavit did not "accompany" the warrant for purposes of this inquiry. Certainly some of our precedents have held that the "purpose of the accompanying affidavit ... is both to limit the officer's discretion and to inform the person subject to the search what items the officers executing the warrant can seize." United States v. McGrew, 122 F.3d 847, 850 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted and emphasis removed); see also Towne, 997 F.2d at 548. Eliminating any doubt on this score, we held, in United States v. Grubbs, that "our prior cases unambiguously require officers to present any curative document ... to the persons whose property is to be subjected to the search." 377 F.3d 1072, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2004), rev'd by United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 126 S. Ct. 1494, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006).

However, the Supreme Court overruled our decision. Grubbs, 547 U.S. at 98-99. The Court explained that "[t]he Constitution protects property owners not by giving them license to engage the police in a debate over the basis for the warrant, but by interposing, ex ante, the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer between the citizen and the police, and by providing, ex post, a right to suppress evidence improperly obtained and a cause of action for damages." Id. at 99 (internal quotation and punctuation marks and citation omitted). Because the Supreme Court has rejected our previous position, SDI's argument that the Fourth Amendment required the search team to provide all defendants a copy of the affidavit fails. We therefore conclude that the warrant did incorporate the affidavit.

Search warrant for evidence of forgery permitted a search of defendant's closet which revealed drugs. State v. Hawkins, 225 Ore. App. 355, 201 P.3d 239 (2009).*

Consent to search for weapons did not include consent to open a tinfoil packet in his pocket because it could not possibly contain a weapon. State v. Quale, 225 Ore. App. 470, 202 P.3d 187 (2009).*

While defendant's stop was illegal, the fact that defendant was told that he did not have to consent to a search and the officer told him he was not telling him that he could not put his hands in his pocket in the cold mitigated it all, and it made the ensuing consent valid. State v. Hinds, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 56 (January 28, 2009).*

Defendant's statements in a bankruptcy proceeding where he disavowed any interest in a Las Vegas house showed he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the house. His post hoc rationalizations were not believed. Going to the merits of reasonable expectation of privacy, he loses there, too. United States v. Burke, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4762 (E.D. Va. January 23, 2009):

Prior to the search, at the time of the search, and months after the search, defendant expressly denied living at the residence and having any ownership interest in the residence or in the boxes stored in the garage and the house. His explicit statements and conduct relinquished any expectation of privacy in the place searched and the property seized. His contradictory and self-serving testimony made years after the search during the course of the criminal prosecution is not credible. As such, the court could deny defendant's motion to suppress on this basis alone. See Decoud, 456 F.3d at 1007; United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1510 (6th Cir. 1990) (denying defendant's motion to suppress because his conduct demonstrates that he did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched).

Vehicle validly seized by the police was still subject to the automobile exception where there was probable cause. A security sweep of the premises that was strictly limited was valid, too. United States v. Weeks, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5841 (D.Del. January 26, 2009).*

Officers had probable cause for something after the PC for drugs evaporated. They had probable cause to believe he was driving on a suspended driver's license, and they learned of the federal investigation. They could continue on the suspended license. Their subjective intent was irrelevant. United States v. Turner, 553 F.3d 1337 (10th Cir. 2009).*