Opinion
No. 4-035 / 03-0781
Filed March 10, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Amanda Potterfield, Judge.
Bradley Wayne Burnell appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2003). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Susan Nehring, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Bradley Wayne Burnell appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2003). We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Burnell was charged with the foregoing offense based on evidence obtained by Cedar Rapids police officers who made a warrantless entry and subsequent search of John Clark's residence pursuant to a search warrant. Prior to trial Burnell moved to suppress all of the evidence so obtained claiming the officers' initial entry was illegal and the resulting search warrant was issued without probable cause.
The State resisted Burnell's motion citing circumstances justifying the police officers' warrantless entry into Clark's home as well as additional evidence supporting the magistrate's probable cause determination. The State also claimed Burnell did not have standing to challenge the validity of the search warrant because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy while at Clark's residence.
The trial court's ruling on Burnell's motion included the following findings:
Mr. Burnell claim[s] an interest in the property seized and an expectation of privacy in the home as [a] guest . . . The record contains no other information regarding the connections between . . . Mr. Burnell and the Clark residence.
The trial court nevertheless addressed Burnell's motion on its merits, ultimately concluding the search warrant was supported by probable cause. Burnell's motion was accordingly denied.
Following a trial to the court on stipulated testimony, Burnell was convicted and sentenced accordingly. On appeal Burnell argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the evidence was obtained through violations of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
II. Standard of Review
We review constitutional claims de novo, independently evaluating the totality of the circumstances. State v. Prior, 617 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 2000).
III. Search and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, secure the right of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court has developed a two-step approach that is utilized to assess whether Fourth Amendment violations have occurred. State v. Breuer, 577 N.W.2d 41, 45 (Iowa 1998). The first step requires us to determine whether the person challenging the search and seizure has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched. Id. The second step requires us to determine whether the State has "unreasonably invaded that protected interest." Id. Expectation of Privacy
The right afforded by the Fourth Amendment is specific to the individual and may not be invoked by third persons. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88, 119 S.Ct. 469, 473, 142 L.Ed.2d 373, 379 (1998). An individual challenging the search must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular area searched. State v. Naujeks, 637 N.W.2d 101, 106 (Iowa 2001). A person's home is covered by the protections of the Fourth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. These protections have been extended to cover overnight guests in their host's home. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 99-100, 119 S.Ct. 1684, 1689-90, 142 L.Ed.2d 85, 94-95 (1990). However, guests are not afforded such protections if they are merely on the premises to conduct business transactions. See Carter, 525 U.S. at 91, 119 S.Ct. at 474, 142 L. Ed.2d at 381. Whether a person had a legitimate expectation of privacy is determined on a case-by-case basis. Naujeks, 637 N.W.2d at 106.
In his motion to suppress, Burnell alleges that he was a socializing "guest," and therefore had a protected expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. See Carter, 525 U.S. at 99, 119 S.Ct. at 478, 142 L. Ed.2d at 386 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (stating that social guests will generally have an expectation of privacy in their host's home). He does not claim he was an overnight guest. Our review of the record indicates Burnell has failed to offer any evidence regarding his association with Clark or his reason for being at Clark's house when these events occurred. See id. at 91, 119 S.Ct. at 474, 142 L. Ed.2d at 381 (describing relevant factors used in determining a reasonable expectation of privacy). Burnell's bald assertion that he was a guest with a protected expectation of privacy is insufficient to meet his burden to establish the requisite standing to challenge the constitutionality of either the entry or subsequent search of Clark's residence. See e.g. State v. Ortiz, 618 N.W.2d 556, 559 (Iowa 2000) (stating that defendants challenging a search must show that their own Fourth Amendment rights, and not the rights of others were violated).
Because Burnell has failed to establish the requisite standing to challenge the search and seizure of evidence found in John Clark's residence, we affirm the trial court's ruling denying his motion to suppress.