United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993) (per curiam)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  Next




certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 92-207. Argued March 24, 1993—Decided May 3, 1993

Police arrested Luis Arciniega, after finding cocaine in a car he drove, and subsequently arrested respondents, Donald Simpson—the car's owner— his wife, and Xavier, Maria, and Jorge Padilla, charging them with, inter alia, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Respondents moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the investigation, claiming that it was the fruit of an unlawful investigatory stop of the car. The District Court ruled that all respondents were entitled to challenge the stop and search because they were involved in a joint venture for transportation that had control of the contraband, reasoning that the Simpsons retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, and that the Padillas had supervisory roles and joint control over the operation. It concluded that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to make the stop and thus the evidence should be suppressed. Applying its rule that a co-conspirator's participation in an operation or arrangement that indicates joint control and supervision of the place searched establishes standing to challenge the search, the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the Simpsons and Xavier Padilla, and remanded for further findings whether Jorge and Maria Padilla shared any responsibility for the enterprise.

Held: The Court of Appeals' rule squarely contradicts this Court's rule that a defendant can urge the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment only if that defendant demonstrates that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure. See, e. g., Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 164, 171-172. Expectations of privacy and property interests govern the analysis of Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims. Participants in a criminal conspiracy may have such expectations or interests, but the conspiracy itself neither adds nor detracts from them. On remand, the court must consider whether each respondent had either a property interest that was interfered with by the stop of the car or a reasonable expectation of privacy that was invaded by the search thereof.

960 F. 2d 854, reversed and remanded.

Acting Solicitor General Bryson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor


Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007