Legal Document

508 U.S. 77 113 S.Ct. 1936 123 L.Ed.2d 635 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Xavier V. PADILLA et al. No. 92-207 May 3, 1993. William C. Bryson, Bethesda, MD, for petitioner. Walter B. Nash, III, Tucson, AZ, appointed by this Court, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The United States Court of Appeals the Ninth Circuit has adopted what it terms a "coconspirator exception" to rule regarding who may challenge constitutionality search or seizure. Under its reasoning, co-conspirator obtains legitimate expectation privacy Fourth Amendment purposes if he either supervisory role in conspiracy joint control over place property involved This "exception," apparently developed series earlier decisions Appeals, squarely contradicts controlling case from Court. We therefore reject it. 2 While patrolling Interstate Highway 10 Casa Grande, Arizona, Officer Russel Fifer spotted Cadillac traveling westbound at approximately 65 miles per hour. followed several because thought driver acted suspiciously as passed patrol car. ultimately stopped was going too slowly. Luis Arciniega, and sole occupant car, gave his driver's license an insurance card demonstrating that respondent Donald Simpson, customs agent, owned Cadillac. Robert Williamson, officer appeared on scene assist Fifer, believed Arciniega matched drug courier profile. Acting belief, they requested received Arciniega's permission vehicle. officers found 560 pounds cocaine trunk immediately arrested Arciniega. 3 After agreeing make controlled delivery cocaine, made telephone call contact motel Tempe, Arizona. Respondents Jorge Maria Padilla drove response call, but were attempted drive away Like agreed cooperate with law enforcement officials. She led them house which her husband, Xavier Padilla, staying. ensuing investigation linked Simpson wife, Sylvia Padilla.1 4 charged distribute possess intent violation 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession distribute, 841(a)(1). also engaging continuing criminal enterprise, 848 (1988 ed. Supp. III). moved suppress all evidence discovered course investigation, claiming fruit unlawful investigatory stop District Arizona ruled respondents entitled "a venture transportation . had contraband." App. Pet. Cert. 22a. reasoned that, owners, Simpsons retained reasonable their Padillas could contest solely roles "joint very sophisticated operation. ." Id., 23a. On merits, lacked suspicion Arciniega,2 granted respondents' motion suppress. 5 affirmed part, vacated remanded. court began analysis stating order "[t]o legality seizure, defendants must establish 'legitimate privacy' searched seized." 960 F.2d 854, 858-859 (CA9 1992) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 128, 143-144, 99 421, 430-431, 58 387 (1978)). then recited rule: coconspirator's participation operation arrangement indicates supervision establishes standing." F.2d, 859 (citations omitted). 6 Relying line cases Circuit, held "because have demonstrated drugs vehicle engaged active formalized business arrangement, standing claim items 860-861. established "not simply [he] car" "he coordinating He critical player scheme essential getting across border." Id. 860. interest she "provided communication link" between other members conspiracy, "held tying everyone together overseeing entire operation." Ibid. "exhibited substantial oversight respect purchase [and] through Arizona." expressly stated did not matter present during stop, exclude others searching 7 tell record whether "shared any responsibility enterprise," "mere employees family 861. As result, remanded further findings issue. 8 appears stand alone embracing exception."3 certiorari resolve conflict, 506 ----, 404, 121 330 (1992), now reverse. It long been defendant can urge suppression obtained only demonstrates rights violated challenged Alderman States, 394 165, 171-172, 89 961, 965-966, 22 176 (1969); 131, n. 1, 133-134, 425-426, (1978); Rawlings Kentucky, 448 98, 106, 100 2556, 2562, 633 (1980). applied principle coconspirators Alderman, we said: 9 "The is product be successfully urged those whose itself, are aggrieved introduction damaging evidence. Co-conspirators codefendants accorded no special U.S., S.Ct., 965-966. In Rakas, supra, police car yielded box rifle shells glove compartment, sawed-off under passenger seat. petitioners, passengers ownership rifle, area searched, suffered invasion rights. See Rawlings, supra; Soldal Cook County, ---- - 538, 544-545, 450 (1992) (decided since rendered decision case). 11 is, therefore, contrary holding odds discussed above. Expectations interests govern seizure claims. Participants such expectations interests, itself neither adds nor detracts them. Neither fact, example, "communication husband others, fact charge conspirators, bearing respective 12 reverse judgment Appeals. so consider each protected interfered automobile driven invaded thereof. Soldal, supra. 13 ordered. A related Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) revealed Warren Strubbe conspiracy. Although technically case, see Court's Rule 12.4, file petition challenging decision, do address aspect court's opinion. Government finding appeal does here. First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Eleventh, Columbia Circuits declined adopt exception co-conspirators codefendants. Soule, 908 1032, 1036-1037 (CA1 1990); Galante, 547 733, 739-740 (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 431 969, 97 2930, 53 1066 (1977); Hunter, 550 1066, 1074 (CA6 1977); DeLeon, 641 330, 337 (CA5 1981); Kiser, 948 418, 424 (CA8 1991), 503 112 1666, 118 (1992); Brown, 743 1505, 1507-1508 (CA11 1984); Davis, 199 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 108, 617 677, 690 (1979).

Classification Label: 0