Sorry, I missed the last post. Haven’t been back for a few days. I’m having to speculate here, because the devil’s in the details (of the contract, applicable law, etc), but if the rental agreement for the apartment allows the owner to invalidate the contract and remove your items because of the forged letter, then I don’t see how you could have an expectation of privacy, since you willfully took actions that you knew would invalidate the contract. However, an apartment, because it is a domicile, may have a much higher protection that a car or a storage locker, and local law may require an eviction process before the owner could reclaim his/her apartment. A better analogy might be a hotel room, which is much closer to a rental car.

In other similar examples, the requirement for an eviction process may not apply under some circumstances, such as using a completely fictitious identity, or using the premises for a criminal enterprise. But I would think that in your specific example, as long as you paid the rent, then using a phony proof of employment might be grounds for terminating the lease agreement and evicting you, but not arbitrarily entering and removing your property, at least until the order for eviction was approved.

Just think as a generality, if the owner can immediately reclaim his/her property because of some action on your part, or because you have no right to possess the property in the first place, then you can’t very well have an expectation of privacy, assuming you were aware of the circumstances.

jccamp: Or there may be something dangerous within, and, as you note, there may be evidence of other crimes within. it is established law that a person can have no expectation of privacy within something he/she obtained via theft or fraud.
In the Utah case cited, the act of renting the storage unit using stolen identification is a crime of Utah’s fraud laws.

Now hold the phone on this part. Imagine I rent an appartment using a forged letter of employment. You’re saying that I have no expectation of privacy?

No problem. As for #2, it’s much more dicey. You’d be asserting that the cops clearly violated 4th A rights, but arguing inevitable discovery. That’s not an experience many prosecutors would enjoy (nor many cops either). Unless the case was pretty important, I suspect the decision would be not to fight suppression of the evidence. Even if the evidence was ultimately admitted – far from certain – there would probably be some uncomfortable moments deriving from the bench, so to speak, when the judge addressed the admitted rights violation.

Sandy MacHoots: Sorry if I was unclear, but yes, that’s the gist of my argument. When you’ve effectively said, “this stuff isn’t mine,” why should the courts now allow you to come in and claim that it is yours and your rights were violated?

Well, its not really like an estopple type thing. The govt sure isn’t disputing that the locker is his.

“It seems to me that it is self evident that a storage location, which generally has a padlock on it, has an expectation of privacy, regardless of the details of how it was rented.”

The contract between storage owner and renter was fraudulent and void (by state law). The storage owner almost certainly had some clause within the contract that allowed him/her/the company to force open the locker and remove any items stored within if the bill wasn’t paid, if the contract contained false or fraudulent info, etc. If you place items within a storage space and sign a contract that essentially voids your expectation of privacy if you commit certain acts or fail to commit certain act spelled out in the contract, you have no complaints when you do exactly those things (which void your privacy rights in effect) as spelled out in the contract.

In this case, the police had the real Mrs X (the stolen identity) come down and give permission to open to locker. They probably could have done just as well as giving the storage owner the information and allowing him to open the locker and remove the contents pursuant to contract.

Alexia: could argue that he had a higher expectation of privacy because the unit wasn’t easily connected to him.

That’s one of the traditional problem with the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. If the Government announced that from now on it would search all public storage units without a warrant, no one would have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy because they would know such units could be searched. I don’t read a lot of fourth amendment stuff, but I’ve always thought that this was a very awkward test to apply to what often seems to be something other than an inquiry into what people would actually “expect.”

David Nieporent: “Tricked you, it was mine, and you searched it without a warrant, so it’s excluded”? Maybe that’s your argument?

Sorry if I was unclear, but yes, that’s the gist of my argument. When you’ve effectively said, “this stuff isn’t mine,” why should the courts now allow you to come in and claim that it is yours and your rights were violated?

If the police know the jacket is stolen, they have to right – indeed, the obligation – to seize it when and where they discover it, and retain it for the true owner. The police cannot reasonably be expected to seize items and then not inventory them before storing them. As examples, the (old) items may contain other items of value, and the police have the right to protect themselves against accusations of theft. Or there may be something dangerous within, and, as you note, there may be evidence of other crimes within. it is established law that a person can have no expectation of privacy within something he/she obtained via theft or fraud.

In the Utah case cited, the act of renting the storage unit using stolen identification is a crime of Utah’s fraud laws.

In the second instance you ask about, if the police search the jacket without a legal basis before they discover its nature as contraband, they could conceivably argue the new evidence would have been inevitably discovered when they discovered the jacket was stolen, and so the timing of the seizure of the new evidence was immaterial. That argument may or may not work, and a prosecutor may or may not decide to try it. It would probably depend on how significant the suspect was in terms of past conduct and perceived future threat, for instance.

Sandy MacHoots: There are some hard potential questions here, but this case seems easy.The defendant took significant steps to tell the entire world that he had nothing to do with this storage unit, and he did so to ensure that whatever might be found in the unit could not be linked to him.Once you’ve told the whole world that nothing in the unit is yours, I don’t see how you have any reasonable claim that you had a privacy interest in it.

I’m not involved with the law at all, which is probably painfully obvious to most of you, but I could argue that he had a higher expectation of privacy because the unit wasn’t easily connected to him. Not saying he should have had it, but I can see him thinking that they’d never be able to get a warrant to open the unit because it was in the name of a person totally unrelated to the case.

David Nieporent: If you tell the police, “This isn’t mine,” and they search it, you can’t then say, “Tricked you, it was mine, and you searched it without a warrant, so it’s excluded”?

Interesting scenario. Is the evidence excluded? Seems like it should be, but I sure wouldn’t want to be in front of Roberts with that one.

Certainly a judge can issue a warrant to search storage container #1234 at ABC storage if he wants to. Renting the unit under a stolen identity does not pose an impediment to issuing a warrant.

Sandy MacHoots: Good question. If I took steps to make sure that nobody knew I had any connection to the property, I don’t see why I can suddenly come up with a claim that it really is my property. I don’t see why you should get to have it both ways. If you trick the world into thinking it’s not yours, why should the world have to respect your ownership rights?

I don’t understand how keeping something private somehow costs you your rights. What’s the “both ways”?

Perhaps you’re trying to make some sort of analog of a judicial estoppel type argument, where you can’t take contrary positions to ones you prevailed on before? If you tell the police, “This isn’t mine,” and they search it, you can’t then say, “Tricked you, it was mine, and you searched it without a warrant, so it’s excluded”? Maybe that’s your argument? But here he didn’t affirmatively deny to the police that it was his; he simply kept his ownership secret. (It’s not as if it’s legal for police to search third parties’ storage units without warrants; it’s just that the remedy isn’t necessarily exclusion.)

Sandy MacHoots: Good question. If I took steps to make sure that nobody knew I had any connection to the property, I don’t see why I can suddenly come up with a claim that it really is my property. I don’t see why you should get to have it both ways. If you trick the world into thinking it’s not yours, why should the world have to respect your ownership rights?

Why shouldn’t they? It’s certainly possible, especially with embarassing material, that I could want to retain property rights to something, but not want anyone to know it. And in this case the defendant didn’t try to abandon the property or anything. He made sure the world knew that somebody owned it, he just didn’t want anyone to know it was his.

And btw, if you lay on a towel your machoots won’t get sandy :-).

pmorem: Part of the court’s logic was that property (the identity) was demonstrably stolen.
Another part of the decision was that the verifiable owner consented to the search.

You made both of those points in your 1st comment, but you can sure see stuff in the decision that I can’t see.

1. Assume for the hypo both cases, that a) the cops know the jacket is stolen before the search, and b) the cops find out after the search. Why does that matter? (except for the good-faith exception)

2. Why does it matter what the owner did? He can’t waive my 4A rights, and I can’t assert his.

As for the storage unit, if the person who rented the unit gives consent, I don’t see a problem. If I store my stuff in my girlfriends unit and she allows the police to search and they find something illegal in my stuff, I don’t have an argument … or do I?

(Presumably the idea was that this would make it difficult to connect the stored items with Johnson.)

It seems to me that this should enhance the reasonableness of his expectation of privacy.

ShelbyC: You wouldn’t argue that he wouldn’t have a privacy interest if he’d done the same thing, but legitimately, correct? Say he had the gf rent the locker under her own name to conceal evidence of embarrassing but legal activity?

Good question. If I took steps to make sure that nobody knew I had any connection to the property, I don’t see why I can suddenly come up with a claim that it really is my property. I don’t see why you should get to have it both ways. If you trick the world into thinking it’s not yours, why should the world have to respect your ownership rights?

That name up there is an alias.

Can some REAL Tom Gunn come along now and claim that is not he and get the cops to search for an impostor sans a warrant?

Seems to me the cops should have determined the true owner of the storage space before searching without a warrant

Why not get a warrant if there is good reason – seems a simple to accomplish requirement.

Sandy MacHoots: The defendant took significant steps to tell the entire world that he had nothing to do with this storage unit, and he did so to ensure that whatever might be found in the unit could not be linked to him.

Well, he concealed his possession of the unit, but that’s consistant with a privacy interest. You wouldn’t argue that he wouldn’t have a privacy interest if he’d done the same thing, but legitimately, correct? Say he had the gf rent the locker under her own name to conceal evidence of embarrassing but legal activity?

Did you bother reading the decision?

Part of the court’s logic was that property (the identity) was demonstrably stolen.

Another part of the decision was that the verifiable owner consented to the search.

I don’t see how you’re going to get either of those two conditions to apply to your hypothetical. Try again with a hypo that resembles the case.

pmorem: To bring your scenario in line with this case, your brother would have to at least affirm that the jacket was stolen (as a criminal act) and authorize the search of his jacket.

Fine. I steal a jacket off a hook in a restaurant. Two years later, the cops conduct an illegal search and find contraband. Admissible?

To bring your scenario in line with this case, your brother would have to at least affirm that the jacket was stolen (as a criminal act) and authorize the search of his jacket.

Cash: So a teenager who borrows his brother’s or father’s jacket without permission is subject to being frisked by the cops?

No. Only if the wearer picked up the jacket from the drycleaners’ without a power of attorney from the owner. The acquisition of the searched property under false pretenses is critical under the court’s reasoning.

Instead of a rental car, I see this as being more like a stolen car, where the owner would have full rights to allow search of the car.

As a matter of policy, I think I like the theory.

What if [same thing but with a rental car and I get pulled over]?

Hoo’s aboot if they were married, he didn’t steal the ID and didn’t know she used it?

Very interesting. I’d read the hell out of a longer post on your thoughts on the issue (rather than an addendum to a post about a specific case). Where are the splits? Over the “scale” of the fraud (i.e. smoking in your rental car (and knowing you were gonna smoke when you signed the contracts) v. stealing an ID to rent a storage unit)? Is there a lessened expectation of privacy or none? This seems sort of “terms of use” related. Could the MySpace issues get solved along with this issue by some perfect case and brilliant opinion?