Defendant did not own the premises searched, but he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it because of his connection to it. Also, criminal acts on the premises is not a waiver of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Minnesota v. Carter is different because there the premises were used solely for distribution of drugs \u2013 it was not a residence. United States v. Jordan, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181643 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2019).<\/p>\n
The defendant juvenile\u2019s pat search wasn\u2019t justified by reasonable suspicion or safety concerns. Police were responding to a robbery call late at night, and they encountered a few juveniles. They didn\u2019t express any safety concerns, the juvenile was smaller than the police officers, and there just was no reasonable suspicion for patting him down. In re Jeremiah S.<\/a>, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1033 (1st Dist. Oct. 21, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant did not own the premises searched, but he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it because of his connection to it. Also, criminal acts on the premises is not a waiver of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Minnesota … Continue reading