E.D.Mich.: Standing shown in a borrowed rental car

Standing found under the totality of the circumstances in a borrowed rented car, but then the defendant looses on the merits because there was probable cause. United States v. Warren, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111690 (E.D. Mich. August 13, 2014):

…While courts do not refer to the issue as that of standing to challenge the search, Warren must nonetheless demonstrate she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in light of the surrounding circumstances. …

Here, Warren had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car under the totality of the circumstances. She and Blakley participated in borrowing the car from his wife, who gave Warren permission to drive the car during the trip to Detroit. Moreover, she had a valid driver’s license, provided a copy of the rental agreement to Ziecina, and claimed possessory interest in everything in the vehicle. That the vehicle was past its return date and did not list her as a driver is not dispositive, just as in Smith, these facts merely demonstrate “a breach of the contract with the rental company[,]” as it is was legal for Warren to possess and drive the vehicle. Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that Warren has standing to challenge the search.

And standing in a borrowed car: United States v. Alcaraz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112050 (D. Nev. June 3, 2014):

Here, the Court finds that Defendant has standing to challenge the search of the vehicle. Defendant had a possessory interest in the vehicle because he had permission from the vehicle’s owner, Pratti, to drive it. Indeed, Pratti testified that Defendant had permission to drive the vehicle for the entire month of February, that he had his own key, and that he maintained the vehicle. With such “joint control” or “common authority,” the Court finds that Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that would permit his Fourth Amendment challenge to a search of the car. Thomas, 447 F.3d at 1198.