SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

Asset Forfeiture Proceedings:
Evidence seized illegally may still be subject to asset
forfeiture proceedings so long as there is admissible
probable cause supporting the conclusion that the evidence
is the product of the defendant’s illegal activity. (United
States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency (9 th Cir. 2010) 590
F.3 rd 942, 948-949.)
Standing:
Defined: The right of an individual to contest the illegality of a search and
seizure. Only the person whose rights are being violated has “standing”
to challenge an alleged governmental constitutional violation. (Rakas v.
Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128, 138-139 [58 L.Ed.2 nd 387, 397-398];
Minnesota v. Carter (1998) 525 U.S. 83 [142 L.Ed.2 nd 373].)
Whether or not a person has “standing” to challenge the legality of
a search is a mixed question of fact (i.e., determining the
circumstances) and law (i.e., determining whether the facts justify
a finding that the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy
under the law). (United States v. Singleton (9 th Cir. 1993) 987
F.2 nd 1444, 1447; United States v. $40,955 in United States
Currency (9 th Cir. 2009) 554 F.3 rd 752, 755-756.)
One must have a legitimate possessory interest in the property
seized, or a legitimate privacy interest in the area searched, or a
personal liberty interest that was infringed. (See People v. Roybal
(1998) 19 Cal.4 th 481.)
Claiming ownership of the property being seized does not establish
that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that
property. The “possessory interest” must be a “legitimate” one;
i.e., excluding contraband and other items not lawfully in the
subject’s possession. (See Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S.
98, 105-106 [65 L.Ed.2 nd 633]; United States v. Pulliam (9 th Cir.
2005) 405 F.3 rd 782, 786; see also United States v. $40,955 in
United States Currency, supra., at p. 756.)
See also People v. Warren (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 619,
624: “(N)o privacy right guaranteed by the Fourth
Amendment is infringed by the search and seizure of a
known illicit substance.”
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: The question really is whether the
defendant, as opposed to someone else, had a “reasonable (or ‘legitimate’)
229
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved