Submitted: November 18, 2016
from United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota - St. Paul
BENTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and EBINGER,  District
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
A. Russell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). In the plea agreement, he reserved the right to
appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
confidential informant (CI) told Officer Adam Lepinski that
he had observed Russell possessing firearms multiple times.
Officer Lepinski knew that Russell's criminal history
prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The officer also
knew the CI had provided reliable information in the past.
weeks later, the CI informed Officer Lepinski that Russell
would be riding in a "darker colored sedan, "
carrying a "greenish-colored handgun" in the Camden
area of North Minneapolis. Within thirty minutes, the CI
provided the sedan's license plate number. Officer
Lepinski notified other officers, who set out to find
Camden area, officers found Russell riding in the passenger
seat of a dark-colored sedan with a license plate matching
the number from the CI. Following the sedan, officers noticed
it making unusual direction changes and rolling through a
stop sign. A few blocks later, the sedan pulled over. Russell
exited the passenger side.
Russell and patting him down, officers found a small bag of
marijuana. Another officer approached the sedan, opening the
door to ensure no one was armed. Smelling marijuana, he
searched the sedan, finding a gun on the passenger side. The
sedan was a rental car leased to Russell's girlfriend but
driven by another woman. His name was not on any rental
documents, and he did not possess the keys.
moved to suppress the gun, alleging no probable cause to
search the sedan. Assuming without deciding he had standing
to challenge the search, a magistrate judge recommended
denying the motion. The district court adopted the
the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews
factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de
novo. United States v. Anguiano, 795 F.3d 873, 876
(8th Cir. 2015). This court "may affirm the denial of a
motion to suppress on any grounds supported by the
record." United States v. Allen, 705 F.3d 367,
369 (8th Cir. 2013).
Amendment rights are personal rights that may not be asserted
vicariously." United States v. Barragan, 379
F.3d 524, 529 (8th Cir. 2004), citing Rakas v.
Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978). "An
individual asserting Fourth Amendment rights 'must
demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy
in the place searched, and that his expectation is
reasonable.'" Id. at 529, quoting
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). "The
defendant moving to suppress bears the burden of proving he
had a legitimate expectation of privacy that was violated by
the challenged search." United States v.
Muhammad, 58 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir. 1995). "If a
defendant fails to prove a sufficiently close connection to
the relevant places or objects searched he has no standing to
claim that they were searched or seized illegally."
Barragan, 379 F.3d at 529-30, quoting United
States v. Gomez, 16 F.3d 254, 256 (8th Cir. 1994).
Factors relevant to standing include:
ownership, possession and/or control of the area searched or
item seized; historical use of the property or item; ability
to regulate access; the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the search; the existence or nonexistence of a
subjective anticipation of privacy; and the objective