Defendant\u2019s creative argument that he was a \u201cprotector\u201d of the home although he wasn\u2019t the owner or occupant and was only an occasional guest is rejected for the day in question. \u201cRoyal argues that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy because a \u2018spectrum of possessory interests\u2019 exists under Third Circuit jurisprudence.\u201d But not enough. United States v. Royal, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212861 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 3, 2021)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Royal argues that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy because a “spectrum of possessory interests” exists under Third Circuit jurisprudence. (See Doc. 89 at 11 (citing Rose, 613 F. App’x at 129)). In support of this theory, Royal notes that officers \u201cbelieved they were entering [] Royal’s home,\u201d that Royal brought food to Marshall and assisted her with childcare, and that he \u2018was a protector of the home\u2019 because he kept people off Marshall’s porch. (Id.) The sole case cited by Royal in support of this position, however, declined to recognize Fourth Amendment rights \u2018on the spectrum between ‘overnight guest’ and ‘merely present with the consent of the householder.\u2019\u201d See Rose, 613 F. App’x at 129. We too decline to break new Fourth Amendment ground based on Royal’s purported status as a \u201cprotector\u201d of the front porch. Royal’s connection with 1332 Susquehanna Street did not rise to the level of an overnight guest. See Olson, 495 U.S. at 98-99. Royal could only enter the residence \u201cwith the consent of the householder,\u201d see Carter, 525 U.S. at 90, and on the day in question, he lacked even that consent. In light of the above analysis, the court concludes Royal lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in 1332 Susquehanna Street, and we will deny the motion to suppress. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 & n.12. In the exercise of caution, we will address alternative grounds for the court’s decision.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s creative argument that he was a \u201cprotector\u201d of the home although he wasn\u2019t the owner or occupant and was only an occasional guest is rejected for the day in question. \u201cRoyal argues that he had a reasonable expectation of … Continue reading