SEVENTH CIRCUIT FINDS A LACK OF STANDING WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT CLAIM A SUBJECTIVE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

The Fort Wayne Police Department received a tip that drugs were being sold at the residence of Michael Chapman. Chapman was on electronic monitoring in lieu of a jail sentence. In order to get the electronic monitoring he waived his rights against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore a police task force went to his house to search it. Two officers knocked at the front door and two more surveilled the back door. After the officers started knocking on the front door, Eddie Lamar Carlyle ran out the back door with a backpack.

The officers handcuffed him and seized the backpack. They found marijuana, crack. a scale, a spatula and packaging materials in the backpack. After he was arrested Carlyle moved to suppress the evidence as being seized without probable cause. The trial court denied his motion on the grounds that he did not have standing to object to the seizure. At the hearing on the motion he denied that he owned the backpack. He testified that the backpack belonged to Chapman asked him to put the backpack in the garage.

The Court denied his motion saying that he did not have standing. In determining whether a defendant has standing to suppress evidence the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals looks at five primary factors:

(1) whether the defendant had a possessory [or ownership] interest in the thing seized or the place searched, (2) whether he had the right to exclude others from that place, (3) whether he exhibited a subjective expectation that it would remain free from governmental invasion, (4) whether he took normal precautions to maintain his privacy, and (5) whether he was legitimately on the premises.

He denied having an ownership interest in the backpack, but claimed to have a legitimate possessory interest in the pack since Chapman handed it to him. He exhibited the right to exclude other, except for Chapman. But at the same time he testified that he did not know what was in the bag. At the trial court hearing on the motion to suppress, Carlyle did not claim to have a subjective expectation of privacy in the backpack. Without such an expectation the appellate court ruled that he did not have standing to object to the seizure.

From the point of view of a trial attorney one needs to make strategic decision prior to filing a motion to suppress evidence. You need to make sure that your client has both a subjective and an objective expectation of privacy. You do not want to put your client on the stand to testify that he/she has possession of the contraband for the purpose standing if you plan to have your client take the stand at trial and deny a possessory interest in the contraband. Sometimes it is worthwhile to pass up a motion to suppress evidence in order to have a chance at trial. Once your client gets on the stand and admits to possession at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence you lose your ability to negotiate the case and you set your client up for DA’s cross examination at trial.