Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
STANDING TO ASSERT FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Nature of Fourth Amendment Rights |
Fourth Amendment rights are personal, not derivative. Thus, evidence seized in violation of one defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights may be admissible against a co-defendant unless the co-defendant has independent grounds to assert such claim. Alderman v. United States.
§ 6.02 “Legitimate Expectation of Privacy” Standard [A] General Rule The modern test for determining whether a person has standing to contest a search on Fourth Amendment grounds is “whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (passenger in a car failed to prove that he had any legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas searched, namely, in the locked glove compartment and the area under the front passenger seat, and therefore, could not successfully claim the protections of the Fourth Amendment). Rakas rejected the notion of “target standing,” ruling that one does not possess standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim simply because he was the target of the search that resulted in the seizure of evidence against him. [B] Examples Involving Residences An overnight guest may successfully challenge a search of another person’s residence. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (defendant, an overnight guest in his girl friend’s home, could challenge the police entry of the premises, notwithstanding the fact that defendant was never alone in the home, did not have a key, and lacked dominion and control over the premises). In contrast, one who is merely present in a residence, without further indicia of a reasonable expectation of privacy, may not claim the protections of the Fourth Amendment. In Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), out-of-town defendants came to another’s apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine, had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 2 1/2 hours. The Court focused on three factors in finding that the defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment searched: (1) the purely commercial nature of the transaction engaged in there; (2) the relatively short period of time in the apartment; and (3) the lack of any previous connections between the two defendants and the occupant of the apartment. [C] Examples Involving Automobiles [1] Automobile Out of Owner’s Possession Courts are split on the issue of whether the owner of an automobile has standing to challenge a search and seizure when the car is temporarily out of the owner’s possession at the time of the police conduct. Most courts hold that when a car owner lends his/her vehicle to another, at least if for a short duration, the owner maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in it and, therefore, can challenge a search of the car that takes place in the owner’s absence. A few courts have held that possession, and not ownership of the car is the key. Therefore, an absent owner of an automobile lacks standing to contest the search of his/her vehicle. More often, however, a court may rule that the owner lacks standing if the owner gives another person complete control of the car and its contents for an extended period of time, especially if the vehicle will be driven a considerable distance away from the owner. [2] Search of Another Person’s Automobile A non-owner occupant of an automobile may have standing to contest a search, under the test set forth in Rakas [439 U.S. 128]. E.g., where the owner lends the car to the occupant for a period of time and the occupant has complete dominion and control of the automobile at the time of the search, the occupant may be found to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile. Some courts have held that a passenger does not have standing to contest a search and seizure of a vehicle in which the passenger is traveling. |
|
|
STANDING TO ASSERT FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
When do you have standing? |
“Legitimate Expectation of Privacy” Standard
General Rule The modern test for determining whether a person has standing to contest a search on Fourth Amendment grounds is “whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” Rakas v. Illinois(passenger in a car failed to prove that he had any legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas searched, namely, in the locked glove compartment and the area under the front passenger seat, and therefore, could not successfully claim the protections of the Fourth Amendment). Rakas rejected the notion of “target standing,” ruling that one does not possess standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim simply because he was the target of the search that resulted in the seizure of evidence against him. [2] Search of Another Person’s Automobile A non-owner occupant of an automobile may have standing to contest a search, under the test set forth in Rakas [439 U.S. 128]. E.g., where the owner lends the car to the occupant for a period of time and the occupant has complete dominion and control of the automobile at the time of the search, the occupant may be found to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile. Some courts have held that a passenger does not have standing to contest a search and seizure of a vehicle in which the passenger is traveling. |
|
|
STANDING TO ASSERT FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Reasonableness Expectation of Privacy Examples Involving Residences When can a search be succesfully challenged? |
An overnight guest may successfully challenge a search of another person’s residence. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (defendant, an overnight guest in his girl friend’s home, could challenge the police entry of the premises, notwithstanding the fact that defendant was never alone in the home, did not have a key, and lacked dominion and control over the premises).
|
|
|
STANDING TO ASSERT FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Reasonableness Expectation of Privacy Examples Involving Residences When does a person not have standing? |
One who is merely present in a residence, without further indicia of a reasonable expectation of privacy, may not claim the protections of the Fourth Amendment. In Minnesota v. Carter, out-of-town defendants came to another’s apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine, had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 2 1/2 hours. The Court focused on three factors in finding that the defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment searched:
(1) the purely commercial nature of the transaction engaged in there; (2) the relatively short period of time in the apartment; and (3) the lack of any previous connections between the two defendants and the occupant of the apartment. |
|
|
STANDING TO ASSERT FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Examples Involving Automobiles Automobile Out of Owner’s Possession |
Courts are split on the issue of whether the owner of an automobile has standing to challenge a search and seizure when the car is temporarily out of the owner’s possession at the time of the police conduct. Most courts hold that when a car owner lends his/her vehicle to another, at least if for a short duration, the owner maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in it and, therefore, can challenge a search of the car that takes place in the owner’s absence.
A few courts have held that possession, and not ownership of the car is the key. Therefore, an absent owner of an automobile lacks standing to contest the search of his/her vehicle. More often, however, a court may rule that the owner lacks standing if the owner gives another person complete control of the car and its contents for an extended period of time, especially if the vehicle will be driven a considerable distance away from the owner. |
|
|
STANDING TO ASSERT FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Examples Involving Automobiles Search of Another Person’s Automobile |
A non-owner occupant of an automobile may have standing to contest a search, under the test set forth in Rakas [439 U.S. 128]. E.g., where the owner lends the car to the occupant for a period of time and the occupant has complete dominion and control of the automobile at the time of the search, the occupant may be found to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile.
Some courts have held that a passenger does not have standing to contest a search and seizure of a vehicle in which the passenger is traveling. |
