Defendant had no standing to contest the installation of a GPS device on the CI\u2019s car that he got in, even if the court followed Maynard. United States v. Okafor, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117030 (D. Minn. August 18, 2011), adopted 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114563 (D. Minn. October 4, 2011):<\/p>\n
Here, there is no indication that Defendant treated his business lot as private. The entire lot can be viewed and used by the public. And the GPS tracking of the CI\u2019s vehicle into the fenced lot adjacent to Defendant\u2019s business did not invade Defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy either. Entrance to both the business parking lot and the adjacent lot across the street is gained from a public street and both lots were visible by officers with their naked eyes from public areas. Although the adjacent lot was surrounded by a chain-linked fence with a locked gate, Defendant himself unlocked the gate to allow the CI access and there was no other indication that the adjacent lot was \u201cprivate.\u201d In fact, Defendant testified that he used the adjacent property to store customer vehicles for his automotive business because there was not enough room to store them on his business lot. In other words, if there would have been room across the street, presumably he would have stored the vehicles there in the open business lot. Therefore, this Court concludes\u2014similar to the court in Reed\u2014that the adjacent lot was a \u201csemi-private area\u201d but was not an area in which Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Reed, 733 F.2d at 501.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading