Opinion ID: 769603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Harris's Standing

Text: 40 Although Harris attempted to join her codefendants' motion to suppress the wiretap evidence, the district court determined she lacked standing because she failed to file a declaration alleging her standing under the Central District of California's Local Criminal Rule 9.2. That rule requires the filing of a declaration setting forth all facts then known and upon which it is contended the motion should be granted and detailing admissible facts that show affirmatively that the declarant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules C.D. Cal., Crim. R. 9. 41 Even if we were to conclude that Harris had standing to join in the suppression motion, we would not reverse the district court because we have affirmed the court's denial of the suppression motion on the merits.