Opinion ID: 676092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vargas's standing

Text: 13 The government argues that Vargas lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the marijuana found in Torres's trailer. In response, Vargas contends that the government waived the issue of standing by failing to raise the issue prior to the court's order suppressing the evidence. 14 The government does not waive its right to challenge a defendant's standing when no facts were adduced at the hearing from which the government could reasonably have inferred the existence of the defendant's standing, United States v. Cardona, 955 F.2d 976, 982 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 381, 121 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992), which is what happened in this case. Vargas failed to testify, submit affidavits, or present any other factual evidence, much less legal argument, from which the government could infer that Vargas was contending that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer and therefore had standing to challenge the seizure of marijuana. Because no facts were adduced at the hearing from which the government could reasonably have inferred the existence of the defendant's standing, we conclude the government did not waive its right to challenge defendant Vargas's standing. Id. We turn to the issue of whether Vargas has standing to contest the seizure of marijuana from Torres's trailer. 15 Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which ... may not be vicariously asserted. United States v. Fuesting, 845 F.2d 664, 671 (7th Cir.1988) (citing Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 967, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969)). It has long been the rule that a defendant can urge the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment only if that defendant demonstrates that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure. United States v. Padilla, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1936, 1939, 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (1993). To establish that he has standing to claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, Vargas must demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched or the items seized. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). A legitimate expectation of privacy is an expectation actually and subjectively held by the defendant and one which society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. United States v. Tobin, 890 F.2d 319, 324 (11th Cir.1989) (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979)). A defendant objecting to the search of a particular area bears the burden of proving a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. United States v. Duprey, 895 F.2d 303, 309 (7th Cir.1989). 16 In this case, dealing with the court's ruling following the suppression hearing before trial, Vargas lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the marijuana because he failed to submit evidence such as testimony or affidavits that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched (trailer) or the item seized (marijuana). In fact, rather than attempting to assert a legitimate expectation of privacy, at the suppression hearing Vargas attempted to establish that he had no connection or relation to the trailer or marijuana, and that he was but a mere passenger on the trip from McAllen, Texas, to East Chicago, Indiana. For example, Vargas's counsel established, through cross-examination of Officer Pizoni, that 1) the vehicle was registered to Torres; 2) there were no papers in the vehicle demonstrating that Vargas had ownership or right of possession of th[e] trailer; 3) Torres gave the police the key to the trailer; 4) the police didn't bother to ask Mr. Vargas for the [trailer] key; 5) at the time of the arrest, the police had no reason to believe that [Vargas] had anything at all to do with the marijuana that was concealed in Mr. Torres's trailer, and 6) Vargas was just riding along with Mr. Torres[.] Moreover, it is undisputed that Torres was the owner of the Blazer and trailer, not Vargas. While this circuit has recognized that a driver who does not own the vehicle he is operating may possess standing to challenge a search of the automobile, United States v. Garcia, 897 F.2d 1413 (7th Cir.1990), that case and the cases upon which it relies make clear that the driver must present evidence establishing that he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the object seized. Cf. Cardona, 955 F.2d at 981 (passenger in automobile without possessory interest therein lacks standing to challenge inculpatory evidence found within vehicle); United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir.) (driver of vehicle), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 238, 116 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991). Because Vargas failed to present any evidence establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer or the drugs, we conclude he is without standing to challenge the seizure of the marijuana found, and we hold that the district court erred in suppressing the stash of marijuana insofar as it concerns Vargas.