E.D.N.Y.: Def got a suppression hearing and was directed to address standing; he didn’t show it

Defendant was stopped for erratic driving in Brooklyn and his car was driven by another officer to the precinct station where it was inventoried. In the order setting the hearing, the court directed defendant to better address his standing, and he didn’t. Aside from that, there was probable cause for the stop and arrest and plain view. United States v. Bethea, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75057 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2016):

Moreover, as noted in the January Order, even if the Court accepted Defendant’s bald assertion that the relative gave him permission to use the Vehicle, the Court does not know whether the relative had authorization from the owner to lend the Vehicle to other drivers such as Defendant. Presumably, a defendant who borrowed a car from the original borrower would not be precluded from establishing standing if he could demonstrate: (1) the original borrower had authority to loan the car to others; and (2) the original borrower did in fact lend the car to the defendant. However, Defendant’s supplemental affidavit does not state whether the relative had any authority to lend the Vehicle to a third party. Furthermore, even if Defendant did claim that the relative had such authority, such a statement would be hearsay unless Defendant could demonstrate that he had direct personal knowledge of that fact. As noted above, absent an affidavit or testimony from the relative or the original owner, “unsupported statements,” particularly self-serving ones, from Defendant carry little weight in determining his expectation of privacy inside an allegedly twice-borrowed vehicle. See United States v. Carter, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1127, 2005 WL 180914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2005) (denying standing where “neither the registered renter of the car nor the third party who allegedly loaned the car to the defendant had come forth to corroborate defendant’s claim of authorized use”). As Defendant lacks standing to contest the search and seizure of items found in the Vehicle, his motion to suppress this evidence is denied.