Opinion ID: 717160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Failure to Suppress Evidence

Text: 6 Defendant moved pretrial for the suppression of the cocaine evidence as the fruits of an illegal search. The District Court held that defendant was without standing to make the claim. The government agrees with the District Court and argues that, in the event that we do not, the case should be remanded in order that the District Court inquire into the issue of consent. 7 A trial court's denial of a motion to suppress is affirmed on appeal if proper for any reason, including one not relied on by the trial court. United States v. Barrett, 890 F.2d 855, 860 (6th Cir.1989). We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error and findings of law de novo. United States v. Williams, 962 F.2d 1218, 1221 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 892 (1992). 8 We agree with the District Court that defendant does not have standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim in this case. See, Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978). At the suppression hearing, defendant disclaimed ownership of the bag which police officers secured from the Bowman apartment. He disclaimed ownership or possession of the apartment. Furthermore, he stated that he did not, at the time of the search, have a key to the premises. He asserted no property nor possessory interest in the apartment, nor an interest in the property seized. See, Rakas, 439 US at 148. Thus, we believe that the District Court did not err, under the circumstances, in concluding that defendant did not have the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to raise a Fourth Amendment claim in this case. See, Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143-44, n. 12, 149.