 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
. Moreover, none of his vehicles had ever been registered at the Westpoint address. Denise testified that at the time she started cooperating with police, the defendant was living in Pulaski with his brother Pete and also spent a couple of nights a week at her apartment. She had not known the defendant to make or claim residence at Westpoint during that time up until he was arrested in April of 1990. Moreover, according to the defendant's own testimony at his bond hearing, the transcript of which was introduced as an exhibit to the suppression hearing, he had lived in Giles County since 1973, except for several months when he lived in Lawrenceburg.
In denying the motion on the basis of standing, the trial court stated:
The Court is going to overrule the motion for this reason: I think the testimony is unclear, at least to the Court, as to where Mr. Bondurant was living at that point in time. His mother said he was living with her part of the time, and his wife says he was living with her part of the time, and part of the time with his brother, Pete, so I don't know.
[The court discusses the case of Bumper v. North Carolina, 390 U.S. 1021, 88 S. Ct. 1407 (1968)]
But I'm going to find that he has no standing to object to the search, which was done to the backyard area of Mr. and Mrs. Bondurant's farm at West Point, where the bone fragments were found.
And I'm going to further find that the only interest Mr. Bondurant possesses in this farm is the hope of an inheritance interest at some time in the future.
On appeal, a trial court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are conclusive unless the evidence preponderates against those findings. State v. Woods, 806 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); State v. Johnson, 717 S.W.2d 298, 304-05 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986).
When challenging the reasonableness of a search or seizure, the defendant has the burden of first establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or property which is searched. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104-05, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 2561 (1980); State v. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tenn. 1982). Although relevant to the standing inquiry, an ownership interest in the property searched is not a prerequisite to establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy. In fact, an individual may possess a legitimate expectation of privacy in another person's residence. State v. Turnbill, 640 S.W.2d 40, 45 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). This Court has held that the following seven factors are applicable to the standing inquiry:
(1) property ownership; (2) whether the defendant has a possessory interest in the thing seized; (3) whether the defendant has a possessory interest in the place searched;
(4) whether he has a right to exclude others from that place; (5) whether he has exhibited a subjective expectation that the place would remain free from governmental invasion;
(6) whether he took normal precautions to maintain his privacy; and (7) whether he was legitimately on the premises.
State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554, 560 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (5th Cir.1981)); Woods, 806 S.W.2d at 208. In making this determination, technicalities of property law or the intricacies of the law of inheritance are not relevant. Instead, the issue is whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property searched at the time the search occurred. Rawlings, 448 U.S. at 104-05, 100 S. Ct. at 2561; see Roberge, 642 S.W.2d at 718.
In reviewing the applicable factors, we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|