No. The Court said Rawlings couldn't complain about the search of the purse because he had no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in it. It wasn't his purse, he had just met the owner, he'd never used it before, and he couldn't stop other people from looking inside it. The fact that the drugs were his didn't matter as much as the fact that he had no privacy right in the place he chose to hide them.

I agree with the outcome, but we shouldn't forget that owning property is still important. Normally, owning something gives you the right to keep people away from it. But in this specific situation, just owning the drugs wasn't enough to give Rawlings a right to privacy in someone else's bag.

I agree that Rawlings had no privacy in the purse. But the Supreme Court shouldn't have decided whether his confession was legal. That's a tricky factual question that the courts in Kentucky should have figured out first. We should have sent the case back to them to decide that part.

Yes, he should be able to complain. The Constitution protects your 'effects'—your stuff—from illegal searches. Because the drugs belonged to Rawlings, he should have the right to challenge how the police found them, no matter where they were. The majority is wrong to focus only on the purse and ignore Rawlings's ownership of the drugs inside.

No, Rawlings could not expect privacy in Cox's purse because he didn't know her well, never used her purse before, and didn't try to keep others out of the purse. Owning the drugs isn't enough. The search of Rawlings was okay because police had a good reason to arrest him after he admitted the drugs were his. It doesn't matter that the search happened before the arrest.

Owning something can sometimes create privacy rights, especially if it includes the right to keep others out. But here, owning the drugs wasn't enough to give Rawlings privacy in Cox's purse.

The Court shouldn't decide if Rawlings' admission was caused by the police making him stay in the house. The lower court didn't look at this carefully, so the case should be sent back for them to do that.

The Court is wrong to say you need privacy in the place searched to challenge a search. Owning the drugs should be enough for Rawlings to say his rights were violated. The Court forgot that the Fourth Amendment protects property, not just privacy. Also, Rawlings' admission likely happened because of the illegal detention, so it shouldn't be used as evidence.

Thus, a defendant bears the burden of proving that the search was illegal and that he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.

Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner's person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa

—holding that defendant lacked standing to challenge search of friend's purse that he had placed narcotics in because he had not demonstrated a legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse

—as long the fruits of the search incident to the arrest are unnecessary to support probable cause for the arrest.

Finally, in support of a motion to suppress evidence found in a warrantless search, the burden is on the defendant to show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched.

That the Defendant's arrest "followed quickly on the heels" of the search does not alter the analysis.

Further, the Court notes that "ownership interest is only one fact to be considered and standing alone will not give defendant a reasonable expectation of privacy."

We have held that "capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place."

Other factors to be weighed include whether the defendant has a possessory interest in the thing seized or the place searched, whether he has the right to exclude others from that place, whether he has exhibited a subjective expectation that it would remain free from governmental invasion, whether he took normal precautions to maintain his privacy, and whether he …

No. A defendant's right to challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment is not based on ownership of the property seized, but on whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area that was searched. The Court found that Rawlings did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in Cox's purse. This was based on the totality of the circumstances: Rawlings had only known Cox for a few days, he had never before sought or received access to her purse, he had no right to exclude others from her purse, and the nature of the transaction was sudden and precipitous. Critically, Rawlings admitted at the suppression hearing that he had no subjective expectation that the purse would be free from governmental intrusion. The Court also held that even assuming Rawlings's initial detention was illegal, his subsequent admission of ownership was an act of free will, not a fruit of the detention, because he received Miranda warnings, the detention was in a congenial atmosphere, and his statements were a spontaneous reaction to the discovery of the drugs and a desire to protect Cox.

Yes, concurring with the judgment. While agreeing that Rawlings' possessory interest in the drugs was not sufficient to create a privacy interest in Cox's purse, this opinion clarifies that property interests can be a weighty factor in establishing Fourth Amendment rights. The 'right to exclude' is an essential element of property rights and can be a principal determinant of a legitimate Fourth Amendment interest. However, based on the specific facts of this case, Rawlings did not establish such an interest in the purse itself.

No, concurring with the privacy analysis but not the 'fruits' analysis. This opinion agrees that Rawlings lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the purse. However, it argues that the Court should not have decided whether Rawlings's admission was the fruit of an illegal detention. Because the Kentucky state courts did not address this factual question, the proper course would have been to vacate the judgment and remand the case for the state court to address that issue under the correct legal standard.

Yes. The Fourth Amendment protects a person's security in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects,' and an ownership interest in the property seized is sufficient to give a defendant the right to challenge the reasonableness of the government's search and seizure. The majority's holding improperly narrows Fourth Amendment protection by focusing exclusively on a privacy interest in the place searched, ignoring the explicit protection for 'effects.' When the government unreasonably seizes a person's property, it interferes with their constitutionally protected rights, and that person should have the right to challenge the conduct. Furthermore, Rawlings's admissions were not spontaneous acts of free will but were the direct product of the illegal detention and illegal search of the purse.

No, Rawlings did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in Cox's purse because he had not known Cox for long, had no prior access to her purse, and did not take normal precautions to maintain his privacy in the purse. Rawlings' ownership of the drugs alone is insufficient to challenge the search of the purse. The search of Rawlings' person was lawful as a search incident to arrest, and the fact that the search preceded the formal arrest is not constitutionally significant, as the fruits of the search were not necessary to support probable cause for the arrest.

Property interests can be weighty factors in establishing Fourth Amendment rights in some circumstances. The "right to exclude" is an essential element of modern property rights and may often be a principal determinant in establishing a legitimate Fourth Amendment interest. However, in this case, Rawlings' possessory interest in the drugs was not sufficient to create a privacy interest in Cox's purse.

The fruits inquiry regarding whether Rawlings' admission of ownership was the result of an illegal detention should not be undertaken by this Court in the first instance. Because the Kentucky Supreme Court did not properly address this federal question and the record is unclear, the case should be vacated and remanded for the state court to address the issue under the correct legal standard.

The Court's decision rejects the fundamental principle that an interest in either the place searched or the property seized is sufficient to invoke Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Rawlings' ownership of the drugs seized from Cox's purse should be enough to establish that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the government's conduct. The Court has ignored the historical understanding that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect property interests as well as privacy interests. Additionally, Rawlings' admission of ownership was likely the fruit of the illegal detention and should have been suppressed.

Rawlings v. Kentucky

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot