# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 17 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ras ha d Art hu r Ru ss el l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 16 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

1, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d EBI NGER, Dis tri ct 1 Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ras ha d A. Ru ss e l l p l e d g ui lt y to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). In th e pl ea ag reem en t, he res erv ed

The Hon or ab le Reb ecca Goo dg am e Ebi ng er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r 1 th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.th e rig ht to ap pe al th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28

U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

A co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t (CI) to ld Offi cer Ada m Lep in sk i th at he ha d ob se rv ed
Ru ss el l po ss es si ng fir earm s m ul ti pl e ti m es

. Offi cer Lep i n s ki kn ew th at Ru ss el l’s cri m in al hi st or y pr oh ib it ed hi m fro m po ss es si ng a fir earm

. The of fic er al so kn ew th e CI h ad pro vi de d re li ab le in fo rm at io n i n t he pa st

.

A few week s la te r, th e CI in fo rm ed Offi cer Lep in sk i th at R u s s e l l wou ld be rid in g in a “ da rk er co lo red se da n,” carr y in g a “ gr een i s h

- c ol or ed ha nd gu n” in th e Cam de n area of Nor t h M i n ne ap ol is

. W it hi n th irt y m in ut es , th e CI pr ov id ed th e

se da n’s l i cen se pl at e nu m be r. Offi cer Lep in sk i no ti fie d ot he r of fic ers , who se t ou t
to fin d R us se ll

.

In th e Cam de n area , of

fic ers fo un d Ru ss el l rid in g in t h e p a ss en ge r se at of a da rk -co lo red se da n wit h a li cen se pl at e m at ch in g th e nu m be r fro m th e CI. Fo ll owi ng th e se da n, o ffi cers no ti ced it m ak in g u nu su al di rect io n c ha ng es an d ro ll in g t hr ou gh

a st op si gn

. A few bl oc ks la te r, th e se da n pu ll ed ov er. Ru ss el l ex it ed th e pa ss en ge r si de

.

St op pi ng Ru ss el l a n d pa tt in g hi m do wn, of fic ers fo un d a sm al l ba g of

m ari juan a. Ano th er of

fic er ap pr oa ch ed th e se da n, op en in g th e do or to en su re no on e

was ar med

. S m el li ng m ari juan a, he se arch ed th e se da n, fin di ng a gu n on th e
pa ss en ge r si de . Th e se da n was a ren ta l ca r le as ed to Ru ss el l’s g irl fri en d b ut dri ve n by an ot he r wom an

. His na m e was no t on an y ren ta l d o c u m en ts , an d he di d no t
po ss es s t he ke y s.

Ru ss el l m ov ed to su pp res s th e gu n, a l l e g i n g no pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e

se da n. Ass um in g wit ho ut de ci di ng he ha d st an di ng to c ha ll en ge th e se arch
, a

-2

-m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d de nyin g th e m ot io n. The di st ric t cou rt ad op te d th e 2

reco m m en da ti on

.

Rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s, th is co ur t rev ie ws fact ua l
fin di ng s fo r cl ear e rro r an d l eg al co nc lu si on s d e n ov o. Unit ed St at es v. Ang ui an o , 79 5 F.3 d 87 3, 87 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Thi s co ur t “ m ay affi rm th e de ni al of a m ot io n to

su pp res s on an y gr ou nd s su pp or te d by th e reco rd .” Unit ed St at es v. Al le n , 70 5 F.3 d
36 7, 3 69 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

“ Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s are pe rs on al rig h t s th at m ay no t be as se rte d vi cari ou sl y .” Unit

ed St at es v. Ba rr ag an , 3 79 F.3 d 52 4, 5 29 (8t h Ci r. 20 04 ), ci ti ng R ak as v. Il

li no is
, 43 9 U.S. 12 8, 13 3- 34 (1 97 8)

. “ An in di vi du al as se rti ng Fo ur th
Am en dm en t rig ht s ‘m

us t de m on st rat e th at he pe rs on al ly has an ex pect at io n of pr iv acy in th e pl ace se arch ed
, an d th at hi s ex pe ct at io n is reas on ab le .’ ” I d

. a t 5 2 9
, qu ot in g Mi nnes ot a v. Ca rt er , 52 5 U.S. 83
, 88 (1 99 8)

. “ The de fen da nt m ov in g to su pp res s be ars th e bu rd en o f pr ov in g he ha d a le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy th at was vi ol at ed by th e ch al le ng ed se arch .” Unit ed St at es v. Muh am m ad
, 58 F.3 d 35 3, 35 5 (8 th Cir . 19 95 ). “ If a d efen da nt fai ls to pro ve a su ffi ci en tl y cl os e co nn ect io n to th e rel ev an t pl aces or ob

jects se arch e d h e ha s no st an di ng to cl ai m th at th ey were

se arch ed or se iz ed il le ga ll y .” Ba rr ag an , 37 9 F.3 d at 52 9- 30
, qu ot in g Unit ed St at es v. Gom ez , 16 F.3d 25 4, 2 56 (8t h C ir. 1 99 4) . Fact or s re le va nt to st an di ng in cl ud e:

own ers hi p, po ss es si on an d/ or co nt ro l of th e area se arch ed or it e m
se iz ed ; hi st or ic al us e of th e pr op ert y or it em ; ab il it y to reg ul at e acce ss ; th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e se arch ; th e ex is te nc e
or no ne xi st en ce of a su bjec ti ve an ti ci pa ti on of pr iv acy; an d th e ob jecti ve
reas on a b l e ne ss of th e ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy co ns id eri ng th e sp eci fic fact s o f th e cas e.

The H o n o r a b l e Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. -3

-Gom ez , 16 F.3d at 2 56

.

“ Gen eral ly, a m ere pa ss en ge r do es no t ha ve st an di ng to ch al le ng e a ve hi cl e

se arch whe re he ha s ‘nei th er a pr op ert y no r a po ss es so ry in te res t in th e au to m ob il e.’” Ang ui an o , 79 5 F

. 3 d a t 8 7 8
, qu ot in g Ra ka s , 43 9 U.S. at 14 8. Ru ss el l was no t an

own er or reg is te re d us er of th e se da n an d di d no t ha ve a pr op ert y in te res t in it

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ma rq uez , 60 5 F.3 d 60 4, 60 9 (8 t h C i r

. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng de fen da nt la ck ed st an di ng whe re he “ ne it he r o w n e d no r dr ov e” th e ve hi cl e an d on ly was “ an

oc cas io na l pa ss en ge r th erei n” ); Unit ed St at es v. Gre en , 27 5 F.3 d 6 9 4, 69 8- 99 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (h ol di ng de fen da nt la ck ed st an di ng whe re he was a p a s s e n g e r in a car dr iv en by ano th er).

Ru ss el l as se rts a po ss es so ry in te res t be cau se th e se da n was ren te d by hi s gi rlf rie nd an d al le ge dl y op er a te d at hi s req ue st

. A “ de fen da nt m us t pr es en t at le as t

so m e ev id en ce of co ns en t or pe rm is si on fro m th e la wfu l own er/ ren te r [o f a ve hi cl e]

to gi ve ris e t o a n ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy.” Muh am m ad
, 58
F.3 d at 35 5. Ru ss el l pr ov id es no ev id en ce th at hi s gi rlf rie nd pe rm it te d hi m to dr iv e th e se da n or ot he rwis e ex erci se an y po ss es so ry co nt ro l ov er it

. I d

. ( ho ld in g d efen da nt la ck ed st an di ng whe re he “ pr es en te d no di rect ev id en ce th at [th e la w f u l

ren te r] ha d gr an te d hi m pe rm is si on to us e th e ve hi cl e”). Bec au se he di d no t es ta bl is h

a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e se da n, he ha s no st an di ng to ch al le ng e th e

se arch

. Se e Unit

ed St at e s v. Ma ck li n , 90 2 F.2 d 13 20
, 13 30 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ [T]o ha ve a le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy by way of a po ss es so ry in te res t, de fen da nt

m us t ha ve po ss es si on of th e ve hi cl e an d th e ke y s.”)
, ci ti ng Unit ed St at es v. Ro se , 73 1
F.2 d 1 33 7, 1 34 3 (8 th Cir .), cer t d en ie d , 46 9 U.S. 9 31 (19 84 ).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

____________________________

-4

-