Knowledge (XXG)

standing. First, the appellants had just entered the apartment minutes before the police arrived at approximately 3 a.m. The trial court also stated that it "totally disbelieved" Harrell's testimony that the appellants were overnight guests on the night in question. Moreover, the court found that Hill was not in the room in which he would have been sleeping had he been spending the night, and that he was feigning sleep while fully dressed and still wearing his shoes. Finally, the court noted that both appellants lived nearby. The trial court therefore concluded that appellants did not have standing: These two individuals had no standing because… they did not meet their burden of proof that they were overnight guests within the meaning of Minnesota versus Olson.

to the back room, where appellant Hill was lying on a bed, wearing street clothes (including his shoes) and pretending to be asleep. Appellants matched the previous descriptions of the assailants, 3 and Ellis identified himself as "Eddie"; Hill said his name was "Ronald Johnson," but the women in the apartment identified him as "Reggie." The appellants were then placed under arrest.

Once in the apartment, the officers approached the man who was still sitting on the couch (who was later identified as appellant Ellis) and frisked him. The officers asked Harrell if anyone else was in the apartment (the other two women were still in the front room). Harrell said yes, and led them

At the close of the hearing, the trial court found that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the search of Harrell's apartment under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court found several facts 4 that led to the conclusion that the appellants were not overnight guests and therefore did not have

This is a minor detail in this case relating to one of the defendants feigning sleep. It is not mentioned in the summary of the case.

Here are the two paragraphs that reference the word "shoes":