Defendant has standing only as to the contents of a package, not the exterior. United States v. Villalobos, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67451 (D. Ore. September 5, 2007)*:<\/p>\n
An addressee has both a possessory and a privacy interest in a mailed package; a possessory interest in the timely delivery of the package, U.S. v. Hernandez,<\/em> 313 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002), and a privacy interest in the contents, but not the exterior, of the package, United States v. Jacobsen<\/em><\/a>, 466 U.S. 109, 114 (1984). In this case only Villalobos’ possessory interests in the letter are at issue, as Villalobos concedes, and the law is clear, that she did not have a privacy interest in the exterior of the envelope. See e.g. Katz v. United States<\/em>, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) (“[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant found to have voluntarily consented to a search. She also gave a statement, and she was never in custody when she gave the statement. Indeed, she was free to leave and did leave after the statement. United States v. Manning, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67597 (D. Haw. September 11, 2007).*<\/p>\n
“When a defendant seeks to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as a result of an illegal seizure, the burden of proving that a seizure occurred is on the defendant.” Here, the defendant proved it was, and the government failed to prove that the officers had reasonable suspicion for detaining him. His consent, therefore, was invalid. State v. Zapata-Reyes<\/a>, 2007 Ida. App. LEXIS 83 (September 14, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading