Opinion ID: 3012336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standing to Assert Property Rights

Text: To have standing to bring a Section 1983 claim alleging the violation of his property rights under the Fourth Amendment, Eiland must: (1) assert his own property rights, and (2) allege an injury in fact. He fails on the first prong. We reiterate that the Fourth Amendment unmistakably . . . protects property as well as privacy. Soldal, 506 U.S. at 63. Law enforcement officials simply cannot unreasonably seize property. Id. at 62-63. A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). Assuming that none of the exceptions to the knock-and-announce requirement applies, the forced entry into a residence without first knocking and announcing may constitute a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Kornegay, 120 F.3d at 396-97. Indeed, the knockand-announce requirement is intended, in part, to prevent needless damage to property. Id. at 396. Eiland has failed, however, to demonstrate that he had a possessory interest in the property that was allegedly damaged. Eiland claims that Jackson and his fellow officers damaged three doors of the house when making their forced entry. He concedes, however, that he has no ownership interest in the house and that the house (and its doors) are owned by his daughter. It is clear that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted. Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134. Thus, while Eiland’s daughter may have had standing to bring a claim asserting her property rights under the Fourth Amendment, Eiland himself did not. Because Eiland has not asserted the requisite interest in property, we need not discuss whether he alleged an injury in fact to that property before concluding that he lacked standing to bring a claim for the violation of his property rights under the Fourth Amendment. Neither need we decide whether the District Court erred in concluding that even if Eiland owned the property, his absence during the search precludes a claim for injury to that property as the result of a purportedly illegal entry.