Defendant lacked standing in the house of another. He can\u2019t rely for standing on the government\u2019s litigation positions \u2014 he has to point to evidence. United States v. Valdez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57478 (D. Minn. Feb. 7, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57035 (D. Minn. Apr. 3, 2019):
\n<\/p>\n
In order to have standing to seek suppression of the fruits of an allegedly unconstitutional search of the Laduke Residence, Defendant must “prov[e] a reasonable expectation of privacy in” the Laduke Residence. See, Maxwell, 778 F.3d at 732 (8th Cir. 2015). Defendant bears the burden to make this showing, and he may not “rely on ‘positions the government has taken in the case’ but must ‘present evidence of his standing, or at least … point to specific evidence in the record which the government presented [that] establishe[s] his standing.'” See, Id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant lacked standing in the house of another. He can\u2019t rely for standing on the government\u2019s litigation positions \u2014 he has to point to evidence. United States v. Valdez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57478 (D. Minn. Feb. 7, 2019), adopted, … Continue reading