The officers encouraged the search by a private person, and that made the search a government search. \u201c[C]ommon authority does not depend on \u2018property rights,\u2019 but derives from the \u2018mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.\u2019 United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838, 845 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974)).\u201d The government failed in its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the person who consented had actual authority. He had no key to enter and was locked out. United States v. Van Dyke, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47652 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2010).<\/p>\n
Former officer of a corporation that was searched under a warrant could not show a reasonable expectation of privacy (\u201cstanding\u201d) in the place searched. He was a legal officer of the corporation, but he did not use the offices searched. United States v. Renzi, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47621 (D. Ariz. April 16, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading