Opinion ID: 1840075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the warrantless search of 1028 West Broadway constitutional?

Text: Richards' first issue involves the warrantless search of the 1028 West Broadway storefront. He argues that, because the police had no warrant and their conduct did not fall within any exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of warrantless searches, the evidence found at the crime scene must be suppressed. The Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant before the government can search the home or business of a private individual. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1379, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). If the defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched, then the police should obtain a warrant before searching. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 354, 88 S.Ct. 507, 512-13, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); State v. Tungland, 281 N.W.2d 646 (Minn.1979). The Fourth Amendment protection clearly reaches to business premises as well as residential property. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978). Thus, searches conducted without a warrant on a business premise (except for inspection searches, which the search at issue here clearly was not) are presumptively unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement can be found to apply. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). There are some well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement, instances when the police may, for a variety of reasons, search and seize without the official blessing of a warrant. Several of these theories may be relevant here. A warrantless search is permissible, for instance, when the delay necessary to obtain a warrant might result in the loss or destruction of the evidence. See, e.g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Also, police are not required to obtain a warrant to search an area if someone with legal authority over that area consents to the search. See, e.g., United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). The state adopts the reasoning of the two trial courts which heard this motion below and ruled the search constitutional. Both trial courts held, first, that Richards lacked standing to contest the search and, second, that the property appeared to have been abandoned, so it was reasonable for the officers to rely on the leasing agent's consent to the search. The state also asserts that the smell emanating from the storefront would have inevitably led to the discovery of the body and other evidence. The state's argument that Richards lacks standing to contest this search appears to be dispositive of the issue. [2] It is clear that the Fourth Amendment's protection is personal and individual, regardless of whether the one protected is a natural person or a legal fiction, such as a corporation. See LaFave, Search and Seizure, at § 11.3(d) (3rd ed. 1996). A defendant who cannot demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy relating to the area searched or the item seized will not have standing to contest the legality of the search or seizure. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 138-48, 99 S.Ct. 421, 427-33, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). Generally, a person doing business as a corporation, even if he or she is the sole shareholder, may not vicariously assume the corporation's Fourth Amendment rights. See Lagow v. United States, 159 F.2d 245, 246 (2nd Cir.1946). However, while the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an employee may contest the search of his business premises if the area searched was one in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from government intrusion, Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 368, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 2124, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968), it has not conclusively determined the status of a sole proprietor's standing in his business premises. LaFave, Search and Seizure, supra, at § 11.3(d). Moreover, courts have not interpreted Mancusi as a grant of individual standing to corporate officers relative to the corporate premises. Id. There appear to be two lines of inquiry into the standing of a business owner to contest the search of his business for evidence to be used against him personally. Some courts require the individual to demonstrate a nexus between the area searched and the work space of the defendant. United States v. Britt, 508 F.2d 1052, 1056 (5th Cir.1975). Others have examined the defendant's relationship to the evidence seized. See United States v. Mancini, 8 F.3d 104 (1st Cir.1993). Neither inquiry lends support to Richards' contention that he has standing to contest the search of the 1028 West Broadway space. In Britt, for example, the area searched was a storage area where the defendant spent no time working. There, the court determined the defendant lacked standing. Britt, 508 F.2d at 1055. Similarly, the 1028 West Broadway space appears to have merely been storage space for Richards. The record contains no evidence that Richards actually ran any sort of business from the location. Thus, Richards had no workspace at the storefront and therefore no standing to contest the search there. Turning to Richards' relationship to the items seized, we again find no support for his claim of standing to contest the search. In Mancini, an appointment book containing personal and business entries was seized. The court found that the presence of many personal appointments suggested that the overall nature of the document was appropriately nonpublic, thereby justifying a legitimate expectation of privacy and standing to contest the search. Mancini, 8 F.3d at 108. In contrast, the storefront contained a few boxes  which held some of Richards' mother's clothing and some magazines  and some furniture, a table and a few chairs. Unlike the appointment book in Mancini, none of these items seem the sort of items that one keeps private. Moreover, in Mancini the defendant was held to have standing as to an attic storage room where his belongings were clearly labeled and were segregated from other items in the secured archive attic. Id. at 110. Richards' storage of items at 1028 West Broadway does not reveal any similar effort to keep private the items stored; indeed, nothing about the items or the manner in which they were stored reveals anything of a personal or private nature. In short, neither the nature of the storefront nor Richards' use of it, nor the property stored there indicates a justifiable expectation of privacy on the part of Richards personally. Thus, we hold that he had no such expectation and may not contest the introduction of the evidence found there.