Even though somebody else owned the van, defendant was a regular user and that gave him standing. At the time of the seizure, it had broken down, and he used it then for storage. The government failed to show any justification for the seizure and then search of the van in response to defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. Instead, it simply relied on standing, which it lost on. The search of a house, however, was by consent of the owner. United States v. Hill, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193796 (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192106 (D. Minn. Nov. 21, 2017). (There’s a moral here. Defendant’s standing was evident, so address the merits of the vehicle search. Maybe they didn’t think they could win on it anyway.)<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s argument to suppress the search doesn\u2019t really even address reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and is \u201cmeritless,\u201d but there is an intervening source of information that moots all that. United States v. Wilkerson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192201 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 20, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Even though somebody else owned the van, defendant was a regular user and that gave him standing. At the time of the seizure, it had broken down, and he used it then for storage. The government failed to show any … Continue reading