EvidenceProf Blog

Editor: Colin Miller
Univ. of South Carolina School of Law

Saturday, May 22, 2021

District of New Jersey Finds "Friend With Benefits" Had Standing to Challenge Search of His Friend's Place

The Fourth Amendment states that

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In order to challenge a search, though, an individual must have standing. So, for instance, if I go to my friend's house for an afternoon to watch the French Open, I would not have standing to challenge a warrantless search of her house. Conversely, if I were an overnight guest, I would have standing. So, what if someone is at his friend's house, and the two are "friends with benefits"? That was the question addressed by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in its recent opinion in United States v. Brantley, 2021 WL 1921584 (D.N.J. 2021).

In Brantley

on July 26, 2018, the Paterson Police Department (“PPD”) “received an anonymous call about [Najee] Brantley, who was wanted on multiple arrest warrants.”...The anonymous caller “identified Brantley by name as having been involved in recent shootings,” “told the police that Brantley currently was at [a woman named Bahjane Reels’] Paterson apartment,” and stated that “Brantley had a handgun that was inside a Gucci fanny pack.”...After confirming the outstanding warrants, but without obtaining a search warrant, PPD detectives went to Ms. Reels’ apartment to arrest Defendant....After entering the apartment, the detectives located Defendant in his underwear under Ms. Reels’ bed....In the process of locating Defendant's clothes, a detective recovered the Bag, which was brought to the PPD station and searched.
Brantley later moved to suppress the bag and its contents, claiming that Reels and he were friends with benefits, making him similar to an overnight guest who would have standing to challenge the search and seizure of the bag. In addressing the motion, the court noted that

As an initial matter, for the purposes of this Motion, this Court accepts that Defendant was more than a short-term guest at Ms. Reels’ apartment and thus had standing to challenge any subsequent warrantless search of his belongings....To the extent that the Government suggests that Defendant's “friends with benefits” relationship categorically fails to merit the protections of an “overnight guest,” this Court disagrees....Defendant had asked Ms. Reels for somewhere to stay, arrived at a late hour, and had fallen asleep in Ms. Reels’ bed in his underwear....Therefore, a reasonable expectation of privacy could be found, and this Court will move forward in assessing the propriety of the inventory search conducted by the detectives.

I agree with the court's ruling, but I wonder whether it would have been the same with different facts. The Urban Dictionary defines a friend with benefits as

A friend in which you are allowed sexual activity but no true relationship is involved. Not a girlfriend or boyfriend. The benefit is purely sexual. Not to be tied with feelings.

So, let's shift the facts one way and say that Brantley and Reels were friends with benefits but that Brantley had merely stopped by for an afternoon delight. Would he still have standing? Conversely, let's shift the facts the other way and say that Brantley and Reels were mere friends but that Brantley had still asked Reels for somewhere to stay. Would he still have standing?

In other words, I wonder how much work the relationship status of "friends with benefits" is doing. I imagine that either a friend or a friend with benefits staying overnight would have standing while either a friend or a friend with benefits would not have standing. But I don't know.

-CM

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2021/05/the-fourth-amendment-states-that-the-right-of-the-people-to-be-secure-in-their-persons-houses-papers-and-effects-again.html

| Permalink

Comments

Post a comment