Opinion ID: 3054405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Basel and Fatima

Text: Because Basel and Fatima had a legitimate expectation of privacy in their home, we reverse the district court’s order holding that they lacked standing to challenge the search warrant, and we remand to the district court so it may revisit that motion. Whether appellants had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home presents a mixed question of fact and law. United States v. Singleton, 987 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1993). “The district court’s ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed de novo, and the findings of fact underlying that conclusion are reviewed for clear error.” Id. [1] The question of who is entitled to contest a search is often framed as one of standing. However, since the Supreme Court’s “long history of insistence that Fourth Amendment rights are personal in nature has already answered many . . . traditional standing inquiries, . . . definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140 (1978). Thus, the Fourth Amendment entitles only those who have a legitimate expectation of privacy in an area to challenge a search of it. See, e.g., Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980). Appellants have the burden of establishing their legitimate expectations of privacy. United States v. Zermeno, 66 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1995). The expectation must be an actual one and “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)). 970 UNITED STATES v. EL FARRA The district court’s denial of Basel and Fatima’s standing appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of their claim. While the district court accurately pointed out that the “automatic standing” rule from Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960), has long been overruled, it erroneously construed Basel and Fatima’s claims of ownership and possession of the house as arguments supporting their automatic standing to contest the search. On this mistaken assumption, the district court held that Basel and Fatima lacked standing because they did not “attempt to establish that they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in Mohammad’s bedroom.” [2] However, “attempt[ing] to establish . . . a legitimate expectation of privacy” is precisely what Basel and Fatima were doing in claiming ownership of and residence in the house. Under the Jones rule, a criminal defendant charged with possession automatically had standing to contest the search which yielded the item he was accused of possessing. 362 U.S. at 264. The Supreme Court has since rejected the “automatic standing” rule in favor of a rule requiring defendants to show a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 92 (1980). Thus, while ownership of the good seized does not automatically confer standing on a defendant, ownership and possession of as well as access to the area in which the good was found is certainly an important factor in determining whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in it. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 176-77 (1969); see also Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001); Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 100 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Reed, 572 F.2d 412, 422 (2d Cir. 1978) (collecting Supreme Court cases affirming the special protection afforded one’s privacy in his home). Appellants, therefore, justifiably pointed out that “ ‘it is difficult to fathom how [the Government] can seriously argue the owners of the residence, who reside in the residence don’t have standing.’ ” Accordingly, the district court erred in ruling that Basel and Fatima lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy based on its UNITED STATES v. EL FARRA 971 construction of appellants’ argument as one seeking automatic standing. The Government contends that, regardless of Basel and Fatima’s occupancy of the home, which it does not dispute, they did not have a privacy interest in Mohammad’s bedroom. The Government seems to argue that, because Mohammad had possession of the bedroom, which had a separate entrance and out of which he conducted a business, it formed, in effect, a separate apartment in which Basel and Fatima retained no expectation of privacy. [3] First, the Fourth Amendment does not require Basel and Fatima to establish that they had an exclusive possessory interest, see Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 n.11 (1968), or an exclusive right of access or exclusion, see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 99-100 (1990), in the bedroom. See also Commonwealth v. Strickland, 326 A.2d 379, 383 (Pa. 1974) (applying Bumper and holding that the defendant could challenge admission into evidence of a letter that was found in a room other than the one he slept in five nights a week). Basel and Fatima’s uncontested declarations of ownership and occupancy established their expectations of privacy in the entire home, which included Mohammad’s bedroom. [4] Furthermore, Mohammad’s bedroom was not sufficiently separate to deprive Basel and Fatima of an expectation of privacy. Despite Mohammad’s occupancy, his bedroom formed part of the home, an area in which Basel and Fatima had a legitimate privacy interest. Looking again to appellants’ uncontested declarations, Mohammad, Basel and Fatima took no steps to separate Mohammad’s bedroom from the rest of the house by, for instance, installing a lock on the door or having Mohammad pay rent. Indeed, Basel and Fatima claimed rights of access, possession and exclusion in the bedroom. 972 UNITED STATES v. EL FARRA [5] Likewise, Mohammad’s commercial activity did not interrupt Basel and Fatima’s expectation that they would be free from police intrusion into their home. Compare Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 369 (1968) (holding that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from government intrusion into the office as well as the home), with United States v. Ealy, 363 F.3d 292, 295 n.1 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in an adjacent, detached garage where his brother performed commercial auto work and which the police entered through an open service entrance sometimes used by the public). Regardless of Mohammad’s marijuana dealing, his bedroom remained part of the home in which Basel and Fatima had an expectation of privacy.