{"id":1490,"date":"2008-02-03T11:54:40","date_gmt":"2007-10-31T05:58:59","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-10-31T05:58:59","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1490","title":{"rendered":"Defendant’s own testimony established standing; court reminds Government of Simmons<\/em>, for some reason"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s own testimony established his standing to challenge the search, contrary to the government’s assertions. United States v. Gomez-Vega, 519 F. Supp. 2d 241 (D. P.R. 2007):<\/p>\n

Gomez-Vega testified at the suppression hearing only as to the standing issue.FN6 Based on Gomez-Vega’s testimony, we concluded at the hearing, and now we explain in further detail, he has standing to challenge the seized items under the totality of the circumstances and the evidence before the Court. Accordingly, Gomez-Vega has met the threshold established in Aguirre and Lochan.<\/p>\n

6. One should not lose sight of the fact that “it has been well settled for over twenty years that testimony given to meet standing requirements cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant at trial on the question of guilt or innocence.” United States v. Garcia-Rosa<\/em>, 876 F.2d 209, 219 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Simmons v. United States<\/em><\/a>, 390 U.S. 377, 390, 88 S.Ct. 967, 974, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1247 (1968)). Thus, a defendant should have no prejudicial consequence in admitting ownership of the drug or portions thereof to sustain standing to contest its seizure under Fourth Amendment grounds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Comment:<\/em> Under Simmons<\/em>, the defendant has the ability to testify in his own behalf to establish standing, and the testimony cannot be used against him at trial, unless, of course, he testifies at trial and contradicts that standing testimony.<\/p>\n

Defendant lacked standing because he was not an overnight guest under Olson<\/em><\/a>. He was a mere Carter<\/em><\/a> visitor. Defendant also fled and abandoned evidence, and there was no seizure until after he was arrested. United States v. Roane, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79789 (D. Del. October 29, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Court finds as a matter of fact that the defendant understood enough English to consent to the search that led to the discovery of the money sought to be forfeited. United States v. $78,850.00 in United States Currency, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79704 (D. S.C. July 25, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}