Opinion ID: 172806
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right to Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment

Text: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Because Fourth Amendment rights are personal, a defendant may only claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule if [his] own Fourth Amendment rights have in fact been violated. United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256, 1259 (10th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 85, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980)). [3] This inquiry requires a determination of whether the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect an interest of the defendant that was violated by the ... search. United States v. Erwin, 875 F.2d 268, 270 (10th Cir.1989) (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)). Thus we turn to the classic two-part Fourth Amendment test: (1) whether the defendant manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched and (2) whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 235 F.3d 482, 489 (10th Cir.2000) (internal quotation omitted); see also United States v. Valdez Hocker, 333 F.3d 1206, 1208-09 (10th Cir.2003). Even assuming that Johnson established that he had a subjective expectation of privacy in the storage unit, we conclude that he did not show that his expectation of privacy was one that society would recognize as objectively reasonable.