Defendant had an expectation of privacy in a borrowed car

Defendant had standing to challenge the search of a car he borrowed but lost the key to and had to leave it in the cemetery where he parked it before he lost the key. It got towed as potentially abandoned because a homicide was nearby. It was not, however, abandoned. United States v. Gonsalves, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3454 (D. Haw. January 15, 2008):

An ownership interest is not necessary to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy. United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit says that a defendant has standing to challenge the search of another’s car when that defendant has permission from the owner to use the car, is in possession of the car, and holds a key to the car. United States v. Portillo, 633 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Thomas, 447 F.3d at 1199 (holding that a driver of a rental car driving with permission from the authorized driver, but without authorization from the rental company, has standing to challenge the search of the rental car).

. . .

Gonsalves, although not the registered owner of the Ford Escort, had permission from Gutierrez to use the Ford Escort. Gonsalves had a key for the car, and even though he had subsequently lost the key, was in possession of the car when he arrived at HMP, and locked the door when he got out. These actions demonstrated Gonsalves’s ability to “exclude all others, save his [sister], the owner.” Portillo, 633 F.2d at 1317. Gonsalves, therefore, had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the Ford Escort.