Page 34 - TPA Journal November December 2022

factual findings for clear error and the district jackets are not exactly like suitcases, and neither
court’s conclusions. . . de novo.” Rodriguez does party, nor this court, has located any precedent
not challenge any of the district court’s fact squarely addressing Rodriguez’s theory.
findings. Thus, as the government concedes, the Second, Rodriguez maintains that he has standing
only questions before us are legal ones that we to challenge the search because it qualifies as a
review de novo. trespass. Because he did not advance that theory
before the district court, it is subject to the
A Fourth Amendment inquiry typically proceeds in demanding standard of plain-error review.
two parts: A court first asks whether the defendant
had standing to challenge the search and then, if the Rodriguez relies primarily on United States v.
answer is yes, asks whether the search was Richmond, which itself interprets United States v.
reasonable. In other contexts, that order would be Jones,. Those cases hold that, in addition to the
not just typical but mandatory. Standing is a matter more familiar reasonable expectation-of-privacy
of jurisdiction, and courts must assess their test described above, a defendant can show Fourth
jurisdiction before turning to the merits. Amendment standing if the government has
committed a common-law trespass as part of an
But Fourth Amendment standing is a different investigation. But the recent vintage of those cases
matter. “The concept of standing in Fourth leaves us with few authorities interpreting them,
Amendment cases can be a useful shorthand . . . and we do not have the benefit of the district
but it should not be confused with Article III court’s assessment.
standing . . . .” To the contrary, Fourth Amendment
standing “is not a jurisdictional question and hence All of that is to say that the question of
need not be addressed before addressing other Rodriguez’s standing is difficult. Admittedly,
aspects of the merits of a Fourth Amendment “judges may not invoke judicial modesty to avoid
claim.” Thus, we are not bound to decide whether difficult questions.” But neither is it “the role of
Rodriguez had standing to challenge the search of the federal courts to answer legal questions unless
his jacket. Instead, the usual rule applies, and we specific cases need answers.” In keeping with that
may affirm the judgment for any reason supported principle, we reserve for another day the theories
by the record. Thus, we may affirm if we of Fourth Amendment standing presented by
conclude, as we do, that that search was lawful. Rodriguez; we turn instead to a question to which
our precedents provide a more certain answer.
That course is particularly appropriate here in light
of the novelty of the Fourth Amendment standing Turning to the merits of the search of Rodriguez’s
questions. Rodriguez presents two theories in jacket, we conclude that the search was reasonable.
support of Fourth Amendment standing, and Specifically, it was justified by the protective
precedent does not definitively answer either. First, sweep exception to the Fourth Amendment’s
Rodriguez maintains that he had a reasonable warrant requirement. The protective-sweep
expectation of privacy in the jacket. “Typically,” a exception was first articulated in the vehicular
passenger in a car, as distinct from the driver, context in Michigan v. Long. The Court allowed
“lacks standing to complain of its search.” But this police “to conduct an area search of the passenger
circuit has recognized an exception for a compartment [of a vehicle] to uncover weapons, as
passenger’s personal luggage. “The owner of a long as they possess an articulable and objectively
suitcase located in another’s car may have a reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially
legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to dangerous.” Such searches are permissible even if
the contents of his suitcase.” Rodriguez maintains a suspect has been removed from the vehicle—as
that the same logic extends to the pockets of the long as he “is not placed under arrest, he will be
jacket he had removed and left in the vehicle. But permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will

30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal