D.Nev.: No passenger standing in a stolen car; lack of knowledge of theft adds nothing

A passenger in a stolen car has no standing. “His argument is that he has standing because he did not realize the vehicle had been stolen or embezzled. He cites no authority for the proposition that a lack of knowledge regarding whether a vehicle is stolen or embezzled is sufficient to confer standing for purposes of challenging the search of the vehicle. His lack of knowledge simply underscores the finding that he had no demonstrated right to control or possess the vehicle.” United States v. Stubbs, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36722 (D. Nev. February 27, 2014).

“Defendant makes no specific argument to support his generalized challenge to the legality of the search warrant; rather, he simply requested a four-corner review and a determination by the Court as to whether the warrant was supported by requisite probable cause. [¶] SA Drengson’s affidavit articulates an ample basis upon which to conclude that probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant. …” United States v. Edderhoff, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36835 (D. Minn. March 10, 2014).* [Some courts would have denied the motion for failure to make an argument. And, that request doesn’t warrant a hearing.]

The CI information here was a month old, but it detailed an ongoing marijuana operation, and there was probable cause and good faith reliance. United States v. Giesy, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36481 (D. Kan. March 7, 2014).*