- 41 -
regard to partnership property. See, e.g., In re Subpoena Duces
Tecum, 81 F. Supp. 418 (N.D. Cal. 1948) (partnership was able to
claim Fourth Amendment rights); cf. Fleming v. Montgomery Ward &
Co., 114 F.2d 384, 387 (7th Cir. 1940) (“corporation is entitled
* * * to the protection of the Fourth Amendment against
unreasonable searches and seizures of its papers.”). The
expectation of privacy in a commercial setting is less than in a
residential setting. See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 89
(1998); New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 700 (1987) (the
“expectation of privacy in commercial premises * * * is different
from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in an
individual’s home.”). Petitioner has not established that the
partnership had any expectation of privacy with respect to
AMCOR’s premises, let alone a legitimate expectation. See United
States v. Padilla, supra. As a result, petitioner has not
established that he, on behalf of the partnership, has Fourth
Amendment standing to challenge the search of AMCOR’s premises.
In any event, petitioner has failed to prove that any
partnership books and records were seized pursuant to the
warrant. Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
addresses search and seizure. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(d) provides:
(d) Execution and Return With Inventory. The officer
taking property under the warrant shall give to the
person from whom or from whose premises the property
was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the
property taken or shall leave the copy and receipt at
the place from which the property was taken. The
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011