Court Opinion

ID: 9462090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:31:46.547103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:23.900934
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
STEVENS, Circuit Judge.
In his petition for rehearing defendant advances two arguments that merit additional comment: (1) that our separate analysis of the search of Hunt’s car and the seizure of defendant's property is inconsistent with the holding in United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59; and (2) that in any event we should not foreclose an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress.
I.
In Jeffers the police seized narcotics belonging to the defendant during a warrantless search of his aunts’ hotel room. His aunts had given Jeffers a key to the room and permission to use it whenever he saw fit. The' police were told that Jeffers had “stashed” narcotics there; they conducted a search “for the sole purpose of seizing [Jeffers’] narcotics.” 1 On these facts, Jeffers’ standing to challenge the search as well as the seizure might have been sustained on three alternate theories. (1) As a regular invitee, even though he was not present at the time of the search, his interest in the premises was sufficient to make the search an invasion of his privacy as well as his aunts’; (2) the search was “directed at” him in the sense that the police were looking for his narcotics; or (3) that his interest in the seized property gave him standing to challenge the search that led to the seizure as well as the seizure itself.
In later cases the Supreme Court has cited Jeffers as though it was decided on the first theory, that the defendant’s interest in the searched hotel room rather than in the seized property allowed him to challenge the search.2 This theory, of course, is of no assistance to the defendant in the case before us because he has stipulated that he had no interest in Hunt’s car.
The Jeffers opinion itself emphasizes the fact that the police entered the hotel room “for the sole purpose of seizing respondent’s narcotics.” Thus, the Court seemed to rely on the second theory— that the search was directed at Jeffers— as the basis for its holding in that case that the search and seizure were not “isolable.”3 This theory is also of no *233benefit to defendant in this case. For, as Judge Swygert pointed out in his concurring opinion, there is no indication in the record that the search of Hunt’s car was directed at Lisk.4
The Jeffers case supports defendant here only if we interpret it as accepting the third theory, that the defendant’s interest in the seized property is itself sufficient to confer standing to challenge the search even if the police were not looking for defendant’s property. If the court had intended to adopt that view, there would have been no need to refer to the purpose of the search, or, indeed, to describe Jeffers’ regular access to the premises. The Supreme Court has never cited Jeffers as adopting this third theory,5 and we are persuaded that it is not a correct reading of the Jeffers opinion itself. We therefore adhere to our original opinion.
II.
The Government stipulated that the seizure as well as the search was unlawful. Since it is manifest that Hunt’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the stipulation would require suppression of any evidence taken from the trunk of Hunt’s car in a trial of Hunt, but the stipulation is not a sufficient basis for excluding such evidence offered against Lisk. We therefore reversed the suppression order entered in this case.
The record does not tell us the factual basis for the conclusion that the seizure was unlawful. We think defendant is correct in pointing out that the evidence which would have been presented in the absence of the stipulation might conceivably show that the seizure was unreasonable. If, for example, the police knew in advance that they would find the bomb *234in the trunk, they might be unable to justify a failure to obtain a warrant. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464-472, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564. We, of course, express no opinion about the facts; we do not, however, foreclose an evidentiary hearing if the district court deems it appropriate.
The petition for rehearing is denied.

. 342 U.S. at 52, 72 S.Ct. at 95. The Court emphasized the significance of the sole purpose of the search a second time on the same page when it explained why the search and the seizure should not be separately considered in that case. It said:
“We do not believe the events are so easily isolable. Rather they are bound together by one sole purpose — to locate and seize the narcotics of respondent. The search and seizure are, therefore, incapable of being untied.”

. In Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 367-368, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 2123, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154, the Court stated:
“Furthermore, the Amendment does not .shield only those who have title to the searched premises. It was settled even before our decision in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, that one with a possessory interest in the premises, might have standing. See, e.g., United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59.
See also the statements in Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 301, 87 S.Ct. 408, 413, 17 L.Ed.2d 374:
“A hotel room can clearly be the object of Fourth Amendment protection as much as a home or an office. United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59.
and in Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 1221, 8 L.Ed.2d 384:
“A hotel room, in the eyes of the Fourth Amendment, may become a person’s ‘house,’ ” citing Jeffers.

. See n.l supra.

. Although defendant has requested an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress, he has not offered to prove that the police were looking for his property when they searched Hunt’s car. If such proof should be offered, and if the court should find that to be the fact, the question whether police motivation will confer standing (that otherwise would not exist) to challenge a search would then be squarely presented. Support for such a standing rationale is found in Jeffers, in Judge Swygert’s concurring opinion in this case, and in the “directed at” language in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 261, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. As we pointed out in Mabra v. Gray, 518 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1975), however, that language in Jones may be read as not describing a new standing category.

. There is language in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, that might support such a rule. At p. 261, 80 S.Ct. at p. 731, the Court stated:
“[I]t is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing the relevant evidence that he allege . . . that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy. * * * Courts of Appeals have generally required that the movant claim either to have owned or possessed the seized property or to have had a substantial possessory interest in the premises searched.” (Emphasis added)
Similarly, at p. 263, 80 S.Ct. at p. 732:
“Two separate lines of thought effectively sustain defendant’s standing in this case. (1) The same element in this prosecution which has caused a dilemma, i.e., that possession both convicts and confers standing, eliminates any necessity for a preliminary showing of an interest in the premises searched or the property seized, which ordinarily is required when standing is challenged.” (Emphasis added).
In both instances, although it is not completely free from doubt, the Court appears to have been referring to standing to challenge the search, and not simply to standing to challenge the seizure. The Court did not attempt to explain, however, how the owner of property seized on the premises of another is “the victim of an invasion of privacy” insofar as the search is concerned. In any event, it is clear that the Court did not have to consider such questions in Jones, for it found that Jones had the requisite interest in the searched premises, and, thus, had standing to challenge the search in any event as an invasion of his privacy.
Similarly, in Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208, the Court seemed to suggest that a possessory interest in seized property would confer standing to challenge the search that preceded the seizure. 411 U.S. at 227-228, 93 S.Ct. 1565. Brown lacked any such interest in the seized property, however, Id. at 230-231, 93 S.Ct. 1565, and thus lacked standing to challenge the seizure, much less the search.