CA9: Defs had no standing in part of commercial premises searched of business they ran

Standing in commercial property, even run by defendants, is evaluated differently than in residential property, more on a case-by-case basis. Defendants make a Franks challenge to the warrant, but they fail on standing in this commercial space. United States v. Galecki, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34296 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023) (this appeal was pending 24½ months after argument; it has a 2020 case number):

As we have recognized, determining who may assert a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to specific commercial spaces “requires analysis of reasonable expectations ‘on a case-by-case basis.'” SDI Future Health, 568 F.3d at 695 (quoting O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 718, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987) (plurality)). The need for such a case-by-case inquiry arises from two considerations. First, because “the expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity accorded an individual’s home,” Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 598-99, 101 S. Ct. 2534, 69 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1981), the “expectation of privacy in commercial premises” is “less than[] a similar expectation in an individual’s home.” New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 700, 107 S. Ct. 2636, 96 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1987); see also Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998) (“Property used for commercial purposes” is thus “treated differently for Fourth Amendment purposes from residential property.”). Second, in light of the “great variety of work environments,” any given company officer, manager, or owner may not have the same personal reasonable expectation of privacy in all of the commercial spaces of the organization. SDI Future Health, 568 F.3d at 695.