D.P.R.: Being in technical violation of a lease doesn’t deprive defendant of standing

“Following the logic of these cases, the fact that Defendant was apparently in technical violation of an apartment lease does not deprive him of standing to challenge the search in question. The evidence on the record indicates that Defendant was staying at the apartment with the express permission of his father. Furthermore, he was known to the management of the apartment building, and he regularly made rent and utility payments for the unit. There is no countervailing evidence that Defendant was ever ordered to leave the apartment or otherwise informed that he was not supposed to stay there, much less that he had been evicted from the apartment. Although the Government has demonstrated that Defendant was likely in technical violation of the lease agreement for his apartment, it is equally clear that he maintained his residence in the apartment with the express permission of his father, the lessee, and the implied authorization of the lessor. Accordingly, Defendant has standing to challenge the search that took place during the course of his arrest.” United States v. Osagbue, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1235 (D.P.R. Jan. 3, 2025).

Plethysmograph testing of a sex offender intrudes on privacy under the state constitution, but it is reasonable if for treatment only. Dominguez v. State, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 6, 2025)* (unpublished).

Defendant was a visitor at a house searched under a warrant, and the search of his vehicle outside was reasonable under the warrant and the automobile exception. United States v. Lopez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1689 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 6, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.