Defendant\u2019s efforts to disassociate himself from the house searched started with the premise that the government could not show that he lived there or was sufficiently associated with it to even be arrested. This argument undermines his standing to contest the search. United States v. Square, 790 F. Supp. 2d 626 (N.D. Ohio 2011):<\/p>\n
The undersigned is of the opinion that adequate evidence exists to establish Defendant\u2019s residence at 16320 Eldamere. Detective Moran retrieved mail indicating that 16320 Eldamere was Defendant\u2019s mailing address, and Ohio BMV records also indicated that it was his mailing address. Nevertheless, the undersigned acknowledges that firearms and ammunition were found in a locked bedroom and in the ceiling above a sleeping area in the basement. Hr\u2019g Ex. T, Tr. at 23-24, 61. Defendant contested the Government\u2019s assertion that he had control over these areas, and that he was even a resident of 16320 Eldamere. See, e.g., Tr. at 155, 156, 158, discussed supra. Defendant challenges his connection to the residence and his admissions regarding ownership of the firearms in order to demonstrate that police lacked probable cause to arrest him. Id. at 158-59. In so doing, Defendant also necessarily undermines his standing to challenge the seizure of those firearms. The two analyses (lack of probable cause and standing) are conceptually linked in this case since a defendant\u2019s alleged possession of contraband is insufficient to establish standing. U.S. v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 85 (1980).<\/p>\n
Given the record of this case, the Government may not be able to establish that Defendant possessed the firearms and ammunition without also establishing facts that would demonstrate his residence at 16320 Eldamere. Nevertheless, the undersigned will not speculate as to the evidence to be introduced at trial.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the undersigned views this issue as a matter of Defendant\u2019s failure to carry his burden of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular areas searched. To the extent that Defendant could mount a successful challenge regarding his connection to the searched areas, he would simultaneously disprove standing to challenge those searches. Simply put, Defendant cannot deny residence at 16320 Eldamere, deny a connection to the southwest bedroom, deny a connection to the basement, and still seek protection from the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Do I really need to put a Practice Pointer<\/strong> here?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading