Passenger lacked standing to challenge search of a cooler in the back seat

Defendant as a passenger in a vehicle did not prove standing to contest the opening of a cooler in the back seat. United States v. Parada, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79639 (D. Kan. October 23, 2006):

In this case, defendant does not challenge the search of luggage, but a cooler designed to store food and beverages. The cooler was not stored in the trunk of the vehicle, but was in the back section of the van. The cooler was not being used to transport defendant’s personal belongings while traveling, and contained only the two apple juice jugs of PCP seized by the police. Moreover, defendant never asserted ownership over the cooler, either at the time of the stop or at the suppression hearing. Instead, his ownership assertion is based on Kelley Bradley’s testimony, a witness whose veracity defendant consistently disputed at trial. Based on these facts, the Court cannot find that defendant clearly manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the cooler and that his expectation was one that society has recognized as reasonable. The Court therefore finds that defendant lacks standing to challenge the search of the cooler found in the van.

Defendant approached police car that came onto a convenience store parking lot. That conversation was not a seizure. The bulge in defendant’s pocket, his reaching toward his pocket, and a gang bandana sticking out of his pocket gave reasonable suspicion. The defendant offered to be searched. United States v. Kindelay, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79600 (D. Ariz. October 31, 2006).*

While the question was close, the defendant handcuffed during a Terry stop was not “in custody” for Miranda purposes when he was asked about the location of a gun that the officers had previously seen. United States v. Denson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79430 (W.D. Pa. October 31, 2006):

The court of appeals [in another case], noted that when reaching the question with respect to whether a Terry stop has risen to the level of a custodial interrogation, a district court should consider (1) the purpose of the question; (2) whether the place of the questioning was hostile or coercive; (3) the length of the questioning; and (4) other indicia of custody such as whether the suspect was informed at the time that the questioning was voluntary or that the suspect was free to leave or to request the officers to do so; whether the suspect possessed unrestrained freedom of movement during questioning; and whether the suspect initiated contact with the police or acquiesced to their requests to answer some questions. Id. at 529 (cited in United States v. Thomas, 142 Fed. Appx. 896 (6th Cir. 2005), which found that where police asked a suspect, who was sitting in the police car and had been seen throwing an object believed to be a gun, whether he had a license to carry a firearm, the question was “benign and unintrusive” and did not cause the Terry stop to rise to the level of a custodial interrogation).

Respondents against a Dept. of Labor subpoena failed in their burden to show that the subpoena was unreasonable. The agency made a prima facie showing the subpoena was valid, and the respondents did not overcome it. Chao v. Potter, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43850 (W.D. Mich. August 10, 2005).