Defendant retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backpack that he placed in a car that he wasn\u2019t in when it was searched. \u201cThe following circumstances established that the defendant possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the briefcase: (1) he stored the closed briefcase inside a locked car trunk, (2) the driver informed PRPD officers that the briefcase belonged to the defendant, (3) the defendant did not disavow ownership, and (4) the defendant was present in the vehicle. \u2026 Because the consent, inevitable discovery, and probable cause exceptions were inapplicable, the defendant’s “motion to suppress should have been granted.\u2019\u201d United States v. Agosto-Pacheco, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154235 (D. P.R. Aug. 24, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The employees of a private employer have no Fourth Amendment claim or reasonable expectation of privacy against drug testing at work that they knew they were subject to. This is a private search, and they are at-will employees. Whether it was by direct observation or not didn\u2019t matter. Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC<\/a>, 2020-Ohio-4193, 2020 Ohio LEXIS 1907 (Aug. 26, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backpack that he placed in a car that he wasn\u2019t in when it was searched. \u201cThe following circumstances established that the defendant possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the briefcase: … Continue reading