UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arturo ARMENTA, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that district court's factual findings on Fourth Amendment standing issue are reviewable only for clear error
• “At most, the evidence suggests that [the defendant] was ‘legitimately on the premises,’ which is insufficient to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
• “Armenta's bald assertion that he was an overnight guest . . . is not sufficient to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house.” (citing United States v. Carr, 939 F.2d 1442, 1445–46 (10th Cir. 1991))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).