For defendants: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether a guest temporarily on premises used primarily for commercial purposes had standing to assert suppression of evidence seized after unlawful police entry.
Holding:: Notwithstanding certain language in Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), a guest need not have stayed overnight in order to assert suppression of items seized from a residential unit used primarily for commercial purposes:
¶59 … But this language also reveals that if the guest’s relationship with the host and the host’s property is more firmly rooted, a guest may have standing to challenge a search.
¶60 That also is how the trial court read Carter. And the court’s findings of fact reveal the kind of relationship between Wicks and the other defendants and the property which allows for standing under Carter. The trial court noted that the defendants, including Wicks, had used the attic area on prior occasions for both their criminal enterprise and for socializing. In addition, Wicks was Ronnie Frayer’s [a renter’s] fiance.
Also see State v. Missouri, SC No. 25874, 9/27/04:
In the present case, Missouri and Curtis testified that they had grown up together and were “good friends.” Missouri had frequently visited the Siberts’ apartment in the past and occasionally spent the night. Missouri described the Sibert home as a place to “get away” and as a place to “find comfort.” At times, Missouri had a key to the Siberts’ apartment and kept a change of clothes there. He paid nothing to use the apartment and was there for at least seven hours on the day of the search.By choosing to share the privacy of their home with Missouri on several occasions in the past and on the occasion in question, both the Siberts and Missouri demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy, and that expectation, we hold, is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. …