|
|
United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993)
United States v. Padilla No. 92-207 Decided May 3, 1993 508 U.S. 77
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
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 coconspirator’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 wither 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.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993) in 508 U.S. 77 508 U.S. 78. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2D7A45X13669M4A.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993), in 508 U.S. 77, page 508 U.S. 78. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2D7A45X13669M4A.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993). cited in 1993, 508 U.S. 77, pp.508 U.S. 78. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2D7A45X13669M4A.
|