United States v. William Iraheta

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that passengers of a vehicle have standing to challenge seizure of their luggage
• officers acted unreasonably in searching luggage in a trunk based on a driver's consent when there were two passengers and three suitcases-one per car occupant
• officers acted unreasonably in searching luggage in a trunk based on a driver's consent when there were two passengers and three suitcases—one per car occupant
• “The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated” (citation omitted)
• “A defendant who abandons . . . property prior to the search does not have standing to challenge a search subsequent to his abandonment . . . .” (emphasis is original)
• where neither passenger denied ownership of a duffle bag in the vehicle in which they were riding, they had not abandoned the bag, and had standing to challenge the search of the bag

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).