Cluster 537623

See Chuang, 897 F.2d at 649 (“It is well-settled that a 11 corporate officer or employee in certain circumstances may assert a reasonable expectation of 12 privacy in his corporate office, and may have standing with respect to searches of corporate premises 13 and records.”); Johns, 851 F.2d at 1136 (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in rented storage 14 space).

See Chuang, 897 F.2d at 649 (“It is well-settled that a corporate officer or employee in certain circumstances may assert a reasonable expectation of privacy in his corporate office, and may have standing with respect to searches of corporate premises and records.”); Johns, 851 F.2d at 1136 (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in rented storage space).

Sandy Gomez’s Standing to Challenge the Search of the Yukon’s Trap “Whatever the status of the person asserting a Fourth Amendment claim regarding a seárch of a vehicle, it is clear that in this circuit, the issue is whether the cláimant ‘had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area of the vehicle searched.’ ” United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 337 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 97 (2d Cir.1988) and citing United States v. Chuang, 897 …

Ultimately, the Fourth Amendment inquiry is “whether defendant has established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.” United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.1990) (citing United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir.1987)).

See, e.g., Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 335-36 , 93 S.Ct. 611 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973) (“[T]here can be little expectation of privacy where ... records are handed to an accountant, knowing that mandatory disclosure of much of the information therein is required ---- Accordingly, petitioner here cannot reasonably claim ... an expectation of protected privacy or confidentiality.”); United States v. Kamara-Reid, 16 Fed.Appx. 160, 161 (4th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (nonpree…

Id. at 139-40 , 99 S.Ct. 421 ; United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.1990) (“[W]e are mindful that the Supreme Court has dispensed with the notion of standing as being theoretically distinct from the substantive merits of a Fourth Amendment claim.”).

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979); United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.1990).

United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.1990).

Moreover, he must demonstrate a sufficient ‘nexus between the area searched and [his own] work space.’ ” 897 F.2d at 649 (citations omitted).

United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.) (citing O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 718 , 107 S.Ct. 1492 , 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987)), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 , 111 S.Ct. 77 , 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990).

See, e.g., New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702 , 107 S.Ct. 2636 , 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987) (warrantless inspections of vehicle dismantling businesses authorized by New York vehicle and traffic law); Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 605, 101 S.Ct. 2534 , 69 L.Ed.2d 262 (1981) (warrantless inspections of coal mines authorized by Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 , 92 S.Ct. 1593 , 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972) (warrant-less search of gun d…

See United States v. Mohney, 949 F.2d 1397, 1403-04 (6th Cir.1991) (en banc) (defendant did not have standing to challenge seizure of documents which he did not prepare when they were stored in offices he rarely visited); United States v. Taketa, 923 F,2d 665, 670-71 (9th Cir.1991) (defendant did not have standing to challenge search of coworker’s desk in adjoining office even though he had access to it, but he did have standing to challenge search of his own desk); United S…

See United States v. Mohney , 949 F.2d 1397, 1403-04 (6th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (defendant did not have standing to challenge seizure of documents which he did not prepare when they were stored in offices he rarely visited); United States v. Taketa , 923 F.2d 665, 670-71 (9th Cir. 1991) (defendant did not have standing to challenge search of coworker’s desk in adjoining office even though he had access to it, but he did have standing to challenge search of his own desk); Unit…

See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 , 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979); Stallings, 28 F.3d at 60 ; United States v. Kiser, 948 F.2d 418, 423 (8th Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 503 U.S. 983 , 112 S.Ct. 1666 , 118 L.Ed.2d 387 (1992); United States v. Monie, 907 F.2d 793, 794 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 , 111 S.Ct. 77 , 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990).

Woods v. United States, 498 U.S. 1031 , 111 S.Ct. 689 , 112 L.Ed.2d 680 (1991); United States v. Mancini, 8 F.3d 104 , 105 n. 1 (1st Cir.1993); United States v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665, 669 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2nd Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 , 111 S.Ct. 77 , 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990); United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 595 (10th Cir.1988). 5 .Although not cited by either party, to the extent that DePugh v. Penning, 888 F.Supp. 95…

See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 , 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516-17 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d 992, 995 (11th Cir.1994); Stallings, 28 F.3d at 60 ; 9 Zimmerman v. Bishop Estate, 25 F.3d 784, 787 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Kiser, 948 F.2d 418, 423 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 983 , 112 S.Ct. 1666 , 118 L.Ed.2d 387 (1992); Un…

United States v. Leary, ___ ____ _____________ _____ 846 F.2d 592, 596-98 (10th Cir. 1988) (exporting); United ______ States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649-51 (2d Cir. 1990) ______ ______ (banking), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 (1990).

United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 596-98 (10th Cir.1988) (exporting); United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649-51 (2d Cir.1990) (banking), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 , 111 S.Ct. 77 , 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990).

See id. at 695 , 107 S.Ct. at 2640; United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 648 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 , 111 S.Ct. 77 , 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990).

See Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 , 88 S.Ct. 2120 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968); See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 , 87 S.Ct. 1737 , 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967); United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649-50 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 , 111 S.Ct. 77 , 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990); Leary, 846 F.2d at 595-96 ; see also United States v. Forsythe, 560 F.2d 1127 , 1132 n. 5 (3d Cir.1977). 26.

United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649-50 (2d Cir. 1990).

Third, determining whether defendants possessed such a legitimate expectation of privacy involves a two part inquiry: (1) did the defendants demonstrate a subjective expectation that the contents of the packages would remain free from public intrusion and (2) are the defendants’ subjective expectations of privacy “one[s] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 143 n. 12, 99 S.Ct. at 430 n. 12 (quoting Katz v. United States, 389…

See United States v. Chuang , 897 F.2d 646 , 651 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The fact that [defendant], as an officer of a national bank, knew th[e] documents were subject to periodic examination ..., coupled with the fact that they were found in areas other than [defendant's] office, lead us to conclude that [defendant's] Fourth Amendment rights were not infringed by ... [government] examination."); United States v. Snyder , 668 F.2d 686 , 690 (2d Cir. 1982) ("The records examined ...…

See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 361 15 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); accord United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir. 1990). 16 A protected privacy interest has been found in a wide array of circumstances, ranging from 17 ownership or regular occupancy of a home, United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 18 1990), to status as an overnight guest in someone else’s home, Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 , 99 19 (1990), or even in someone els…

See United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649-50 (2d Cir.1990).

There must be a “nexus between the area searched and the work space of the defendant.” Britt, 508 F.2d at 1056 ; see also United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.1990) (citation omitted).

See Colonnade, 397 U.S. at 77, 90 S.Ct. 774 (specifically found that a search of a business in the liquor industry exceeded the scope of statutory authority, despite the Court's ree-ognition that the industry has been "long subject to close supervision and inspection"); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 317 , 92 S.Ct. 1593 , 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972) (limiting its holding so that administrative inspections of closely regulated businesses such as the gun industry may only pr…

Whatever the status of the person asserting a Fourth Amendment claim regarding a search of a vehicle, it is clear that in this circuit, the issue is whether the claimant “had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area of the vehicle searched.” Paulino, 850 F.2d at 97 ; see also United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.) (“we focus on whether defendant has established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. …