Opinion ID: 799010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legality of the Traffic Stop

Text: Ruiz-Zarate alleges for the first time on appeal that his arrest was unlawful because it stemmed from a traffic stop that Deputy Trammel conducted without a reasonable basis. [2] The government argues in response that Ruiz-Zarate lacks standing to challenge the traffic stop because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Morales's truck. Ruiz does not argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Morales's truck at the time of the stop. Rather, he contends that he has standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge because he suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 591 (8th Cir.2009) (quotation, citation, and alteration omitted). Our court has previously rejected Ruiz's argument, concluding that this concept of `standing' has not had any place in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. . . since the Supreme Court in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), indicated that matters of standing in the context of searches and seizures actually involved substantive Fourth Amendment law. United States v. Green, 275 F.3d 694, 698 n. 3 (8th Cir.2001) (quotation, alteration, and citation omitted). Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicariously asserted. United States v. Randolph, 628 F.3d 1022, 1026 (8th Cir.2011) (quotation and citation omitted). Thus, to challenge a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant must show that (1) he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched or the items seized, and (2) society is prepared to accept the expectation of privacy as objectively reasonable. United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 842 (8th Cir.2009) (quotation and citation omitted). Here, Ruiz-Zarate had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Morales's vehicle, which he neither owned nor was near at the time of the traffic stop. Consequently, Ruiz-Zarate cannot raise a Fourth Amendment claim.