{"id":42606,"date":"2020-02-25T16:43:49","date_gmt":"2020-02-25T21:43:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=42606"},"modified":"2020-02-25T16:43:49","modified_gmt":"2020-02-25T21:43:49","slug":"ca1-def-lacked-standing-to-challenge-search-of-a-shed-actually-done-under-authority-of-bail-condition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=42606","title":{"rendered":"CA1: Def lacked standing to challenge search of a shed actually done under authority of bail condition"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant was stopped by officers with \u201cbeyond\u201d reasonable suspicion he was dealing drugs. The stop was not unreasonably long, and defendant incriminated himself pre-Miranda. Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a shed. The justification for the search was a search condition in his state bail conditions [which I seriously doubt the reasonableness of]. He only challenged it on the word \u201cresidence\u201d which the court finds undeveloped below. <a href=\"http:\/\/media.ca1.uscourts.gov\/pdf.opinions\/19-1244U-01A.pdf\">United States v. James<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5197 (1st Cir. Feb. 20, 2020):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The officers searched James&#8217;s rented apartment and the shed on the strength of the provision in James&#8217;s state bail bond requiring him to &#8220;submit to searches&#8221; of his &#8220;person, vehicle and residence &#8230; at any time without articulable suspicion or probable cause.&#8221; James now says that the waiver of objection was unreasonable as applied to his circumstances because the word &#8220;residence&#8221; was not meant to include the separate shed adjacent to the apartment and rented as appurtenant to it. The trial court concluded that &#8220;in the absence of any developed argument on the point by Defendant,&#8221; Add. 15, the shed was a part of the residence within the bail terms. We see no plain error in so concluding, or in the trial court&#8217;s further holding that on a contrary assumption James would have had no sustainable expectation of privacy necessary to give standing to raise a Fourth Amendment suppression claim. See United States v. Battle, 637 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2011). James contends that the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the co-tenants in his apartment, who also had possessory interests in the shed, but a defendant cannot suppress the fruits of a search based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of others. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1969).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I cannot fathom that consent to searches as a condition of bail before conviction is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. So much for the presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant was stopped by officers with \u201cbeyond\u201d reasonable suspicion he was dealing drugs. The stop was not unreasonably long, and defendant incriminated himself pre-Miranda. Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a shed. The justification for the search was &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=42606\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-standing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=42606"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42606\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42607,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42606\/revisions\/42607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=42606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=42606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=42606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}