Defendant had \u201cstanding\u201d to challenge a search of his person, and it is irrelevant to standing that he denies ownership of a gun found on his person. United States v. Morgan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111120 (E.D. N.Y. June 22, 2010):<\/p>\n
Moreover, a defendant is not required to have an expectation of privacy in the evidence seized in a search. Here, Morgan challenges the stop of his person and may seek to suppress the evidentiary fruits of that seizure under the \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree\u201d doctrine regardless of whether he would otherwise have standing to challenge the seizure of the gun itself. … The defendant need only assert that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated with regard to the poisonous tree, here the stop, and not separately regarding the evidence which constitutes the fruit of that poisonous tree, the gun.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant\u2019s wife consented to search for a computer in the house. She asked if she could look for it, and they said no, they would have to, and what would happen if she refused, and they said they would get a warrant. She consented to the entry, and she also had apparent authority to consent. While she did not have a key to the room entered, she, like her husband, entered the room with a knife or screwdriver, and she had equal access to that room. United States v. McManaman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110855 (N.D. Iowa October 18, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading