- 40 -
petitioner cites Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 142 (person need
not have a recognized property interest in a premises in order to
claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment with respect to use
of the premises).
Petitioner does not have standing to raise Fourth Amendment
claims for a third party. See United States v. Payner, supra at
731 (“a court may not exclude evidence under the Fourth Amendment
unless it finds that an unlawful search or seizure violated the
defendant’s own constitutional rights.” (Emphasis added.)); Rakas
v. Illinois, supra at 133-134 (“Fourth Amendment rights are
personal rights which * * * may not be vicariously asserted.”
(quoting Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969)).
The legality of a search or seizure may be challenged only by one
who has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the items seized
or the area searched. See United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77,
82 (1993) (per curiam); United States v. Sarkisian, 197 F.3d 966
(1986) (9th Cir. 1999). On brief, petitioner states:
“[R]espondent’s violations were committed against the targets in
their capacities as representatives of Crop Associates - 1986 and
are, therefore, claims of the petitioner/parties.” Petitioner is
making a claim on behalf of the partnership.9 We assume that a
partnership has standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim with
9 We do not consider any Fourth Amendment claim that
petitioner may have separate and apart from the partnership’s
claim.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011