N.D.Ga.: Shooting owner of a van and stealing it means no REP in the van when stopped

After test driving a van, defendant shot the owner of the van and stole it. He can’t then have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and, therefore, no standing. United States v. North, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141947 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141688 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 1, 2017):

Defendant’s assertion that he was test driving the van with Dansby’s permission at 3:00 a.m., on March 23, 2015, lacks any merit whatsoever. The undisputed evidence establishes, although Dansby had allowed Defendant to test drive the van earlier in the evening – or earlier in the morning – from the “bunkhouse” to the apartment complex, with Dansby as a passenger in the van …, that Defendant subsequently refused to return Dansby’s keys to him when asked to do so, demanded Dansby’s wallet and, at gunpoint, ordered Dansby out of the van …. When Dansby did not immediately comply, Defendant then shot Dansby and, after Dansby exited the van, attempted to shoot him again. … No one considering this evidence would conclude that Defendant was lawfully in possession of the van with Dansby’s permission. The only reasonable conclusion is that Defendant had stolen or carjacked the van. All of the decisions that this court has found “have held that the possessor of a stolen vehicle lacks standing to challenge a search of the vehicle.” ….