{"id":6640,"date":"2012-09-17T06:28:31","date_gmt":"2012-02-06T08:12:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-02-06T08:12:07","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6640","title":{"rendered":"VI: Govt waives standing by not arguing it at suppression hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a murder case, officers seized defendant\u2019s car, allegedly without probable cause, but shortly thereafter had a search warrant for the car. Whether the initial seizure was invalid really doesn\u2019t matter. Segura<\/a> applies. Browne v. People<\/a>, 56 V.I. 207 (2012).*<\/p>\n

As to Browne\u2019s co-defendant, the government\u2019s claim he lacked standing to contest a search of the car was not raised in the trial court, and it is waived. Melendez v. People<\/a>, 2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 8 (February 2, 2012):<\/p>\n

As an initial matter, we must determine whether the People can assert for the first time on appeal that Melendez does not have standing to challenge the seizure of Jeffrey’s vehicle. In United States v. Butler<\/a>, 405 Fed. Appx. 652, 654 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that if the government fails to raise the issue of standing in the trial court, the issue is waived on appeal. The court reasoned:<\/p>\n

Unlike Article III standing, which cannot be waived, Fourth Amendment standing can be waived if not raised and properly preserved. See Rakas v. Illinois<\/a>, 439 U.S. 128, 140, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) (“[T]his Court’s long history of insistence that Fourth Amendment rights are personal in nature has already answered many of these traditional standing inquiries, and we think that definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.”); see also United States v. Washington<\/a>, 380 F.3d 236, 240 n.3 (6th Cir. 2004) (“‘Standing to challenge a search or seizure is a matter of substantive Fourth Amendment law rather than of Article III jurisdiction, meaning that the government can waive the standing defense by not asserting it.'” (quoting United States v. Huggins<\/a>, 299 F.3d 1039, 1050 n.15 (9th Cir. 2002))); United States v. Dewitt<\/a>, 946 F.2d 1497, 1499-1500 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[T]he issue of [F]ourth [A]mendment standing could be waived if the government has failed to raise it in a timely fashion during the litigation.” (quotation marks and alterations omitted)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Id. In addition to those cited in Butler, other federal circuits have also held that failing to raise the issue of standing in the trial court bars the government from raising it on appeal. See United States v. Gonzalez<\/a>, 71 F.3d 819, 827 n.18 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mendoza<\/a>, 722 F.2d 96, 97 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983).7 We agree with the majority of the Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue and find that by failing to raise the issue of standing in the Superior Court, the People have waived the issue on appeal. See Steagald v. United States<\/a>, 451 U.S. 204, 209 (1981) (warning that the government can “lose its right” to challenge “standing” “when it has made contrary assertions in the courts below … or when it has failed to raise such questions in a timely fashion during the litigation”). Accordingly, since the People failed to assert that Melendez lacked standing to challenge the seizure of Jeffrey’s vehicle in the Superior Court, we deem this argument waived and proceed to the merits of Melendez’s claim.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6640"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6640\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}