United States v. James Mathis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a property owner’s subjective expectation of privacy in an open field was unreasonable
• holding no clear error where “the court thoughtfully considered and weighed the testimony from the parties’ experts, finding the government’s [expert] more persuasive”
• providing that, to have standing to contest a search, the defendant must demonstrate that “he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or items seized”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).