Merely having a key and a right of access to one\u2019s sister\u2019s house does not give her brother standing to challenge search of her house. Motion denied on the papers alone. United States v. Tumbling, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108857 (M.D. Ga. September 23, 2011):<\/p>\n
In this case, the statements of Defendant in his Motion to Suppress give the Court no reason to find that he had any reasonable expectation of privacy in the Alder Street residence. Defendant claims that he has a key to the residence on Alder Street and that \u201che enters the home when [the sister] is at work and as needed.\u201d (Doc. 30, p. 5.) However, Defendant does not allege that he ever shared ownership of the home, spent any length of time in the home, or kept any personal belongings there. Further, there is no evidence of how many people have keys to the home. Possession of a key and permission to enter the home do not suffice to provide Defendant with a reasonable expectation of privacy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Where there is reasonable suspicion, flight becomes probable cause and hot pursuit. \u201cThe Third Circuit\u2019s holding in United States v. Laville<\/a> makes clear that Anderson\u2019s failure to accede to the officers\u2019 commands and subsequent flight, after the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop, gave them the probable cause required to satisfy the first prong of the exigent circumstances exception. See Laville, 480 F.3d at 194.\u201d United States v. Anderson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108414 (D. Del. September 23, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading