Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his brother\u2019s basement apartment because of their family ties. \u201c[U]nder the totality of the circumstances, Carlos has a similar expectation of privacy in his brother Eduardo’s basement apartment because the court finds sufficient indications of Carlos’ acceptance into the household of Eduardo in addition to the fact that their familial tie as brothers \u2018is clearly a relationship which pre-dates the apartment’s use for illegal conduct.\u2019 Heath, 259 F.3d at 533.\u201d United States v. Miranda-Cortez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131560 (D. Utah September 14, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Standing for return of property under Rule 41(g) is low. Wiebe v. National Security Agency, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131708 (D. Md. September 14, 2012):<\/p>\n
Initially, the Government contends that Petitioners lack standing to pursue their claims because they have no possessory interest in government property. That argument is unavailing. Rule 41(g) petitioners have standing if they are able to show a “sufficient interest” in the seized items. Matthews v. United States, 917 F. Supp. 1090, 1104 (E.D. Va. 1996). This is a “comparatively low” threshold, merely requiring the movants to allege ownership and to provide some evidence of ownership. Id.; see also United States v. $191,910 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that although a party need not have an “ownership” interest in seized property to have standing, mere unexplained possession of property is insufficient).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading