United States v. Joseph N. Basinski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant’s friend lacked apparent authority over a briefcase because the officers “knew that [the defendant] never gave [his friend] the-combination to the lock”
• concluding that the defendant’s direction to another person to destroy the defendant’s briefcase “mani- fested a desire that nobody possess or examine the contents of the briefcase,” and did not constitute an abandonment of the defendant’s privacy interest
• concluding that the defendant retained a privacy interest in the locked briefcase he entrusted to a friend, id. at 838, and noting that “ ‘[f]ew places outside one’s home justify a greater expectation (continued...) No. 07-3101 9 4 (...continued
• noting that although the relationship between the defendant and the third party “may have extended to criminal activity,” the third party lacked authority to consent to search of the defendant’s briefcase
• finding that the defendant, who entrusted a briefcase to a lifelong friend and asked him to store and then destroy it, maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the briefcase
• stating that “where a defendant allows a third party to exer- cise actual or apparent authority over the defendant’s prop- erty, he is considered to have assumed the risk that the third party might permit access to others, including government agents”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).