Opinion ID: 508816
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Haberkorn's Standing to Challenge the Admission of the Evidence.

Text: 23 The district court denied Haberkorn standing to challenge the search apparently because his name was not on the rental agreement for the storage unit. Fourth Amendment rights may be asserted only by a person whose own Fourth Amendment privacy expectations have been infringed by the search in question. Thus, the issue is whether Haberkorn has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the storage unit. 24 Neither ownership nor presence are required to assert a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. A formalized arrangement among defendants indicating joint control and supervision of the place is sufficient to support a legitimate expectation of privacy. United States v. Broadhurst, 805 F.2d 849, 851-52 (9th Cir.1986). If the record amply indicates a formalized, ongoing arrangement between the defendants for the storage of chemicals in the storage unit, id. at 852, Haberkorn had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit. In several cases this court has found that participation in an arrangement that indicates joint control and supervision of the place searched is enough to establish a Fourth Amendment protected privacy interest. See United States v. Quinn, 751 F.2d 980 (9th Cir.1984), cert. dismissed, 475 U.S. 791, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 89 L.Ed.2d 803 (1986); United States v. Pollock, 726 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Johns, 707 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 469 U.S. 478, 105 S.Ct. 881, 83 L.Ed.2d 890 (1985). 25 In the instant case, the indictments charged the defendants with criminal conspiracy as to all the substantive crimes involving the manufacture and possession of the drugs. An affidavit submitted by Haberkorn alleged that he was the co-owner of the chemicals found in the storage unit and the payor of a portion of the rental payments made with respect to the unit. We have before us no other relevant documents. 26 We are unable to determine on what grounds the district court decided that Haberkorn had no standing. The government in its brief, however, states that for the purposes of appeal it does not contest Haberkorn's standing to contest the search. Brief of Appellee United States at 12. Although the indictments and Haberkorn's affidavit do not rise to the level of stipulated facts, as in Pollock, supra, these documents do indicate that Johns and Haberkorn were engaged in a joint venture of some sort at the location of the surreptitious search. Therefore we conclude that Haberkorn has standing to assert his right to any hearing on the admission of evidence relating to the search of the Unit 39 storage space. 27 REVERSED and REMANDED. 28