The principals in a business subjected to a search warrant had \u201cstanding\u201d (which the court notes was a word rejected by SCOTUS). Storing records there is still an expectation of privacy. A second place was a residence owned by the corporation that they kept business stuff in, and they came and went at will. They had \u201cstanding\u201d there, too. United States v. Ferguson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24929 (E.D. Mich. February 27, 2012):<\/p>\n
The government argues that the Ferguson defendants’ bare assertion that they were permitted to store personal belongings at the 500 Griswold offices is insufficient to support a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, as discussed below, the rule in United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 52 (1951), indicates that if defendant Ferguson Enterprises were permitted to store business records in the search locations, they should be permitted to challenge the government’s seizure of those records. In addition, in United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2005), the Sixth Circuit held that the owner of an apartment did not have authority to consent to a search of the defendant’s luggage that was stored in the apartment because there was an understanding between the owner and the defendant that the luggage was private. Id. at 845-46. This holding implies that a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in goods stored by permission at a third party’s residence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading