D.Mont.: An unauthorized driver of a rental car still has standing to challenge its search as long as permission was given by the renter

An unauthorized driver of a rental car still has standing to challenge its search as long as permission was given by the renter. United States v. Pinex, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118558 (D.Mont. September 4, 2015).

Packages in the mail were sniffed by dogs, and the packages were tracked from an IP address associated with one address. The Franks challenge fails. “Here, Defendant Peskett has not made the substantial preliminary showing necessary for a Franks hearing. Her allegations are merely conclusory, and are not accompanied by an offer of proof. See Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1073. Instead, she simply claims that the two dogs did not really alert to the odor of narcotics, as stated in the affidavits, and that [the dog]’s training was not adequate. She presents nothing to show that the affiant’s statements were made with deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. Therefore, she has failed to meet even the first Franks prong. Accordingly, the Court denies the request for a Franks hearing.” By the time the packages were detained in transit, there was reasonable suspicion as to each. United States v. Hunsberger, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118688 (D.Nev. August 26, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.