D.Minn.: No standing where car rental company did not authorize def to drive

“Defendant’s argument as to standing to challenge the search of the van is foreclosed by the recent decision of the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Long, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16740, 2017 WL 3741873 at *3 (8th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017) in which the court held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy where the contractual authorized driver of a rental car did not directly provide the defendant permission to drive that car. As applied here, there is no dispute that the owner of the van did not directly provide Defendant permission to drive the van. Accordingly, he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the search of the van, and therefore lacks standing to challenge the search. Because he lacks standing, the Court need not address the legality of the search of the van and the two cellular telephones identified in Defendant’s motion.” United States v. Ramsey, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153136 (D. Minn. Aug. 10, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151927 (D. Minn. Sep. 19, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.