Defendant can disavow knowledge of something yet still have standing to challenge its seizure

A defendant can disavow knowledge of something yet still have standing to challenge its seizure. United States v. Felix, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1957 (S.D. Cal. January 9, 2007):

The Government’s second “hurdle” refers to Defendant’s denial of knowledge of the pouch after his arrest. The Government appears to be arguing that Defendant cannot object to a search of a pouch that he expressly claims he knows nothing about, because he could have no legitimate expectation of privacy in an item of which he is unaware. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that the Government cannot rely upon a Defendant’s disavowal of ownership to defeat standing, while simultaneously charging the Defendant with possession, without regard to the underlying facts. See United States v. Issacs, 708 F.2d 1365, 1367-68 (9th Cir. 1983). In this case, Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bedroom in which he was an overnight guest that allows him to challenge the search of the entire bedroom, including a pouch found therein, regardless of his protestations of ignorance regarding the pouch itself. Accordingly, this argument is without merit.

While Iowa courts have not discussed whether reasonable suspicion is required for a probation search, the defendant’s probation agreement did require it, and the court finds that reasonable suspicion existed for a probation search. United States v. Becker, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1811 (N.D. Iowa January 9, 2007).*

Consent was found voluntary. “The Court finds that the testimony offered by defendant and his wife stretches the boundaries of believability and should not be credited. … Defendant’s wife testified to an equally implausible story, and the Court finds the evidence supports a conclusion that she did voluntarily consent to a search of the home.” United States v. Hernandez-Espolina, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1777 (N.D. Okla. January 9, 2007).*

A 911 call was made and the caller asked for “the intervention unit.” The caller was asked by the operator whether the police or other assistance was needed, and the caller said no. Police were dispatched and they had knowledge that the plaintiff had weapons. When they arrived, they looked through a window and saw a broken dish. This was not exigent circumstances for an entry. Mayo v. City of York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1663 (M.D. Pa. January 9, 2007):

In this case, there is no evidence that Plaintiff had attempted suicide or engaged in self-mutilation. In the absence of such evidence, Defendants must have believed that there was a threat of serious bodily harm to others or that Plaintiff was unable to satisfy his own needs for care or safety. The evidence on this point is, however, in dispute. Defendant Veater was unaware of any other person living in the home, and he had been advised that Plaintiff’s son was no longer present. (Doc. No. 61, Dep. of Veater, 56-7). Although certain of the Defendants testified that Plaintiff said he was going to “end it” (Doc. No. 61, Dep. of Veater, 69), or to go “get his guns” (Doc. No. 61, Dep. of Hansel, 49), Plaintiff testified that he stated only that he was “going to bed.” (Doc. No. 61, Dep. of Mayo, 159). Resolving such conflicting testimony is reserved to the fact-finder.