A warrant seeking \u201cindicia\u201d evidence, evidence of ownership or control of property, was not overbroad. Also, defendant\u2019s brief does not show standing in the property searched. There was nothing tending to show that he had control over the property. United States v. Lisbon, 835 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2011):<\/p>\n
Here, the items sought (identification documents and mail) were tempered by the object of the search \u2013 evidence of identity and\/or occupancy of the premises searched \u2013 and in relation to the crimes under investigation. See Gurleski<\/a>, 405 F.2d at 258 (noting that the \u201csearch must be one directed in good faith toward the objects specified in the warrant or for other means and instrumentalities by which the crime charged had been committed\u201d). The executing agents were therefore given sufficient direction in executing the warrant and as a result, the warrant did not offend the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The former Fifth Circuit’s discussion in United States v. Haydel<\/a>, 649 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981), upon which Lisbon relied, demonstrates the inadequacy of Lisbon’s showing on standing. In Haydel, the evidence established that the defendant’s parents had given him permission to use their home and had given him a key, causing the court to conclude that his access was for all practical purposes unencumbered. Id. at 1155. Although the defendant in Haydel did not reside regularly at his parents’ home, he kept clothing there and had occasionally remained overnight, when he and his wife had domestic problems. Id. & n.2. Unlike Haydel, Lisbon’s statements that he kept belongings there are insufficient to establish the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises, as explained below.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading