United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Nathan Burl Cain II (“Cain”) and Tonia Bandy Cain
(“Tonia”), were indicted on six counts of wire
fraud and a forfeiture count (Doc. 1). Defendants filed this
Motion to Suppress (Doc. 34), seeking to suppress use of
evidence seized by an investigator for the Louisiana Office
of the Inspector General (“OIG”).
was Warden of the Avoyelles Correctional Center
(“ACC”) in Cottonport, Louisiana from 2012 to May
2016, when he retired. Tonia was employed at ACC through May
2016, when she retired.
2016, Nicole Compton, a criminal investigator with the
Louisiana Office of the Inspector General, obtained a search
warrant for Defendants' former residence on the grounds
of ACC. That house is owned by the State. The United States
contends in its brief that the Defendants had left their
employment at ACC and vacated the warden's residence
(Doc. 38, p. 2/9). In the OIG investigator's search
warrant application, the investigator stated the Defendants
were no longer employed at ACC, and had “partially
vacated the residence” (apparently meaning some things
had been left in the house) that is owned by the State (Doc.
34-2, p. 2/5). The Defendants have not stated whether or not
they still had possession of the house.
evidence seized from the house was eventually turned over to
the United States Attorney's Office for the Western
District of Louisiana, which in turn used it to indict
Defendants for wire fraud.
argue all evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant must be
suppressed because the Louisiana Office of the Inspector
General does not have the authority to obtain and execute
search warrants. The Court must first determine whether
Defendants have “standing” to object to the
search of their former home on the ground of the Avoyelles
parties did not address the issue of
“standing.” Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
Defendants shall file a supplemental brief addressing only
the issue of standing on or before April 30,
FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall file a
supplemental brief addressing only the issue of standing
on or before May 7, 2018.
 Louisiana Department of Corrections
Regulation No. A-06-001, allows “ranking administrative
and security staff, maintenance staff, medical/mental health
staff, tactical and chase teams and an adequate number of
CSO's (Corrections Security Officer) to maintain a ready
reserve force” to live in houses provided on the
grounds of some prison facilities. The policy authorizes the
warden to assign available housing rent-free in a manner that
promotes safe, stable, and effective operations.
 Whether someone has standing to
contest the validity of a search “depends on (1)
whether the defendant is able to establish an actual,
subjective expectation of privacy with respect to the place
being searched or items being seized, and (2) whether that
expectation of privacy is one which society would recognize
as reasonable.” United States v. Gomez, 276
F.3d 694, 697 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v.
Kye Soo Lee, 898 F.2d 1034, 1037-38 (5th Cir. 1990). The
defendant bears the burden of proving not only that the
search was illegal, but also that he had a legitimate
expectation of privacy in the place searched. Rawlings v.
Kentucky, 448 U.S. at 104. The proponent of a motion to
suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth
Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or
seizure. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 131 n.
The difficult question is whether Defendants'
expectation of privacy in a place “is one which society
would recognize as reasonable.” See Gomez, 276
F.3d at 697-98 (citing Kye Soo Lee, 898 F.2d at
1037-38). Fourth Amendment rights are individually held and
cannot be asserted solely by reference to a particular place.
The factors to be weighed include: (1) whether the defendant
has a possessory interest in the thing seized or the place
searched; (2) whether he has the right to exclude others from
that place; (3) whether he has exhibited a subjective
expectation that it would remain free from governmental
invasion; (4) whether he took normal precautions to maintain
his privacy; and (5) whether he was legitimately on the
premises. See Gomez, 276 F.3d ...