United States v. Jason Long, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14264

Background

Jason Long operated the OC Store (a convenience/novelty store) on the Lower Brule Sioux Reservation; officers encountered it at ~4:20 a.m. after juveniles reported buying illegal fireworks there.
BIA Officer Spargur approached, found exterior lights and music on but few interior lights and no visible employees; he knocked, received no answer, opened an unlocked main door, entered, saw a package he suspected was synthetic marijuana, spoke with Long, left, then sought a warrant.
Spargur obtained a telephonic search warrant from tribal judge Miner (Judge Miner approved after Spargur read the affidavit; parties dispute whether the warrant text was read or the call recorded), then executed the warrant and seized multiple packages of synthetic marijuana and searched a Blazer in the store parking lot.
On August 6, Officer La Mons (with the building owner Brouse and Raelynn) entered the store to investigate a reported burglary, seized items including a shipping box bearing Long’s name, and arrested Long after he admitted entering the store.
Long moved to suppress evidence and statements from both dates, arguing Fourth Amendment violations (warrantless entry, defective telephonic warrant, unlawful vehicle and later warrantless landlord-authorized search); the magistrate recommended excluding July 28 evidence but admitting the rest; the district court denied suppression in full; Long conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Long’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Was the initial July 28 entry into the OC Store a Fourth Amendment violation?	The store was closed; Long had a reasonable expectation of privacy and officer’s entry was warrantless and unconstitutional.	The store appeared open (lights, music, unlocked doors, recent sale report); Long failed to prove the store was closed, so no reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas.	Court: No violation; factfinder did not clearly err — store was open to public areas, so entry was lawful.
Was evidence from the post-warrant July 28 search excluded because the telephonic warrant was defective?	Telephonic warrant deficient (warrant not read/recorded); judge biased; warrant invalid.	Even if technically deficient, officer relied on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate in objective good faith.	Court: Leon good-faith exception applies; evidence admissible.
Did Long have standing to challenge the search of the 1997 Blazer in the parking lot?	Blazer was in store curtilage; Long’s business interest protects privacy.	Long did not own or regularly use the vehicle and presented no evidence of a privacy interest.	Court: No standing; Long cannot challenge the vehicle search.
Was the August 6 warrantless search and seizure unlawful?	Brouse’s consent was invalid because Long remained tenant/possessed property; items seized were Long’s inventory.	Brouse owned the building (purchased Aug 4); Brouse had actual authority to consent and items could be burglary evidence.	Court: Consent valid; search and seizure constitutional.

Key Cases Cited

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established expectation-of-privacy test)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (addressed where Fourth Amendment applies to open fields and expectations of privacy)
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (commercial premises have Fourth Amendment protection but reduced expectations)
Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (no reasonable expectation in areas of a store open to public)
See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (limits on compelled warrantless administrative searches of premises not open to the public)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Conner, 127 F.3d 663 (8th Cir.) (Leon inapplicable when pre-warrant conduct is clearly illegal)