United States v. Che Rose
613 F. App'x 125 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A short-term social guest who is not staying overnight and has only a casual relationship with the host does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host's home, and therefore lacks standing to challenge a search of the premises under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- On September 10, 2009, Detective Larry Wagner was investigating a stolen firearm and received a tip that it had been sold at Brandon Grayson's residence, Apartment 6.
- Grayson, who rented Apartment 6 but typically stayed elsewhere, was at the apartment hosting a cookout that day.
- Che Rose, a casual acquaintance of Grayson's but a good friend of Grayson's brother, was one of several guests attending the cookout.
- Rose had known Grayson for six years but they rarely spent time together, and Rose had never stayed overnight at Apartment 6.
- When police arrived, Grayson denied consent to search, so officers entered to secure the apartment while they obtained a warrant.
- While officers were securing the apartment, an officer positioned at the rear of the building saw Rose lean out a window holding a revolver.
- Rose attempted to throw the gun onto the roof but failed, and it landed on the ground below.
- Upon his arrest, Rose admitted the gun was his and police found crack cocaine on his person.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Che Rose on multiple counts, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Rose filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from Grayson's apartment.
- Rose initially argued that he was an overnight guest and therefore had standing to challenge the warrantless search.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress, finding that Rose was a short-term social guest and did not have standing to challenge the search.
- Rose entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts, reserving the right to appeal the court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Rose (appellant) appealed the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a short-term social guest, who is not an overnight guest and has a casual relationship with the host, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host's apartment sufficient to grant him standing to challenge a police search of that apartment under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, Circuit Judge.
No, a short-term social guest in these circumstances does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to challenge a search. The Supreme Court has established that while an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy, one who is merely present with the consent of the householder does not. The court rejected Rose's attempt to expand the protections afforded to overnight guests in 'Minnesota v. Olson' to his status as a temporary social guest, noting that such a rule would be too close to the 'legitimately on the premises' standard rejected in 'Rakas v. Illinois'. The court found that Rose's connection to the apartment was too tenuous, as he had no possessory interest, stored no property there, had no key, could not exclude others, and was merely a casual acquaintance of the host. Therefore, Rose lacked the requisite expectation of privacy to have standing to challenge the search.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of Fourth Amendment standing for non-residents, solidifying the distinction between an overnight guest and a mere social guest. It clarifies that simply being a lawful visitor is insufficient to create a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court's multi-factor analysis provides a framework for lower courts to assess a guest's connection to a premises, emphasizing that factors like the duration of the visit, the relationship with the host, and the ability to control the space are critical. The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for temporary, non-overnight guests to challenge searches of the homes they are visiting.
