Non-Overnight Guest Had Standing to Contest Entry Into Backyard, But Seizure Justified by Plain View Doctrine

US v. Green: Green was the suspect in an armed home invasion and a state arrest warrant was issued for him. Police located Green in the backyard of a home, surrounded by a chain-link fence, speaking with an unknown man. Police arrived in force, leading Green to stand up, “pull a handgun from his shorts, holding it in . . . a non threatening manner.” An officer yelled “gun!,” at which point other officers climbed the fence and arrested Green. While that was in process, the other officer jumped over the fence and went to the secure the handgun (which was later seized).

Green was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the gun, arguing that police actions had violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, agreeing with the Government that Green lacked standing to challenge the entry of the yard of a home where he had never been an overnight guest. It did not otherwise reach the issue of whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Green was convicted at trial and sentenced to 84 months in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Green’s motion to suppress, although on different grounds than the district court. As to standing, the court concluded that the district court had erred in concluding that Green could not challenge the entry of the home. The court emphasized the distinction between “business visitors” who do not have standing to make Fourth Amendment challenges and “social visitors” who do, rejecting the categorical requirement that the later must be an overnight guest. Rather, someone who, like Green, was a frequent visitor to the home of a friend, who was also a relation, for a long period of time and who had, by the home owner’s testimony, “free rein of the house.” That Green brought a firearm (illegally) into the home does not destroy standing (otherwise nobody in a criminal  case would have it). While the court disagreed with the district court on standing, it nonetheless affirmed the denial of Green’s motion to suppress under the plain view doctrine.