Defendants are corporate officials of a business that was searched. That fact alone doesn\u2019t give them standing, and the motion papers don\u2019t really help. This is a search under a warrant, and the defendants carry the burden on standing and haven\u2019t yet satisfied it. Argument will be scheduled on the standing question. United States v. Schampers, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222066 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 9, 2022)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
On this sparse record, I cannot determine whether the defendants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched and the items seized. For example, other than a representation from the defendants that agents seized around 25,000 pages of corporate records, the record is silent as to where at Summit these records were seized from. As the cases cited above illustrate, whether any of the defendants have standing to challenge the search of the Summit premises and the seizure of these 25,000 pages of Summit’s records is determined on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, to properly address the factors outlined in SDI Future Health Inc., Gonzalez, and the other cases cited above, I will conduct an evidentiary hearing to fully develop the record on this issue. Again, the defendants have the burden to demonstrate standing. I will schedule a conference with the parties to schedule the evidentiary hearing and oral argument following the hearing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendants are corporate officials of a business that was searched. That fact alone doesn\u2019t give them standing, and the motion papers don\u2019t really help. This is a search under a warrant, and the defendants carry the burden on standing and … Continue reading