Sole ownership of a corporation does not confer standing on the owner. United States v. Okun, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7402 (E.D. Va. February 2, 2009):<\/p>\n
While the Fourth Circuit has not directly ruled on the issue, the weight of precedent in this area clearly indicates that the possessory interest attendant to sole ownership of a corporation is not, in and of itself, sufficient to confer upon the owner Fourth Amendment standing as to all corporate property. See, e.g., U.S. v. Mohney, 949 F.2d 1397, 1403 (6th Cir. 1991); Williams v. Kunze, 806 F.2d 594, 599-600 (5th Cir. 1986); U.S. v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589, 600-601 (1st Cir. 1985), rev’d on other grounds by Carter v. United States, 476 U.S. 1138, 106 S. Ct. 2241, 90 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1986); U.S. v. Vicknair, 610 F.2d 372, 379-80 (5th Cir. 1980); U.S. v. Dall, 608 F.2d 910, 914 (1st Cir. 1979); United States v. Kelly, 529 F.2d 1365, 1369-70 (8th Cir. 1976). Indeed, as the Eighth Circuit stated in Kelly, a case relied upon by Okun for the purpose of attempting to establish his standing: “a bare assertion of a property interest, without a supporting expectation of privacy, will not give rise to a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim.” 529 F.2d at 1369. Therefore, while Okun’s ownership of the corporations against which the search was conducted is surely a relevant and important consideration, that consideration is but one factor in deciding whether Okun possessed the required “reasonable expectation of privacy” necessary to have standing to challenge the search. See Rusher, 966 F.2d at 874-75.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
See the SDI case<\/a> posted Jan. 28.<\/p>\n
Dog sniff during traffic stop that did not extend the stop was reasonable. United States v. Pierce, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7207 (D. Del. February 2, 2009):<\/p>\n
In this case, Cpl. Brietzke verbally engaged Defendant during the traffic stop and detained Defendant for follow-up questioning. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that Cole’s sniff of the exterior of Defendant’s vehicle during the stop and questioning, including Cole’s sniff at the open front-passenger window, was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading