holding that the occupant of an office has standing to challenge warrantless search of his office because entitled to expect only invitees to enter his office
How later courts described this case
- holding that the occupant of an office has standing to challenge warrantless search of his office because entitled to expect only invitees to enter his office
- holding that an employee could reasonably have expected that documents stored in a shared office "would not be touched except with the[ ] permission [of co-occupants of the office] or that of [workplace supervisors]"
- suggesting that consent by employee’s supervisors could validate search when employee worked in “one large room, which he shared with several other union officials” and the employee did not claim that the records at issue were taken from a “part reserved for his exclusive personal use”
- holding *950 that the occupant of an office has standing to challenge warrantless search of his office because entitled to expect only invitees to enter his office
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by George E. Apostol v. Eliot Landau, Mark Gallion, and Chris Haloulos, 957 F.2d 339 (1992)
The one decision factually similar to the case before us—Mancusi v. Deforte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968)—is distinguishable.
The opinion
Mr. Justice White,
dissenting.
Although the Fourth Amendment perhaps protects the individual’s private desk in a union office shared with other officers or employees, I dissent from the Court’s extension of the protected area to the office door.