United States v. $40,955.00 in United States Currency

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an adult who did not live with her parents lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a search of their house despite the fact that she \had free access and a key to the house . . . [and] stored items in [a] safe\ that was opened during the search
• no 21 spoliation where evidence destroyed in normal course of business and no indication that 22 relevant to anticipated litigation
• “A party does not engage in spoliation when, without notice of the evidence’s 22 potential relevance, it destroys the evidence according to its policy or in the normal course 23 of business.”
• “A party does not engage in spoliation when, without notice of the evidence’s 15 potential relevance, it destroys the evidence according to its policy or in the normal course of its 16 business.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).