Opinion ID: 677467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing to Object

Text: 10 Whether Ford has standing to object to the search is the threshold issue in this case. The government contends, and the district court held, that Ford failed to establish his standing in an affidavit or a signed statement of facts supporting his motion to suppress as required by Local Rule 10 H for the Southern District of Florida. Local Rule 10 H provides that [a]ll motions in criminal cases which require evidentiary support shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law and a signed statement of the facts relied upon for the motion. S.D.Fla. Local R. 10 H. We have held that a motion to suppress must in every critical respect, including allegations of standing, be 'sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that a substantial claim is presented.'  United States v. Eyster, 948 F.2d 1196, 1208-09 (11th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1527 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 952, 106 S.Ct. 320, 88 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985)). 11 Although Ford did not append a separate signed statement of facts to his suppression motion, the motion itself refers to the searched premises as Defendant's mobile home and as a private home. R1-52. In addition, Ford's memorandum of law supporting his suppression motion states that Ford leased the property where the mobile home was located. R1-50. Both the motion and the supporting memorandum were signed by Ford's attorney. Because Ford submitted signed documents alleging both ownership of the mobile home and a leasehold in the underlying property, we find that he satisfied Local Rule 10 H. Cf. Eyster, 948 F.2d at 1209 (holding that appellant's suppression motion, with the government's acknowledgement that the appellant owned the searched residence and the appellant's testimony that he was a sublessee of the residence at the time of the search, adequately alleged standing); Richardson, 764 F.2d at 1527 (In short, the motion must allege facts which, if proven, would provide a basis for relief.). 12 Moreover, the facts established at trial confirm Ford's standing. The district court did not accord a hearing on the suppression motion because it determined that Ford had not established a prima facie case for suppression. Nevertheless, government witnesses testified at trial that Ford had a leasehold in the property at the time of the search. Consequently, we find that Ford had standing to object to the search. See United States v. Garcia, 741 F.2d 363, 366 (11th Cir.1984) (holding that owners, lessees, and occupants demonstrating significant and current interest in the searched premises have an expectation of privacy).