MD: Regular user of car who helped pay for it and lived with owner had standing to challenge its search

Defendant had standing to contest the search of his fiance’s car that somebody else was driving that he help buy where he lived with her, he helped pay for the car, and he was a regular driver. The court found five cases in accord from other jurisdictions. Ford v. State, 184 Md. App. 535, 967 A.2d 210 (2009):

The facts in this case are analogous to–but not exactly the same as–those in Whitehead. Although not married to the owner, Ford had a long-time romantic relationship with the owner and, prior to his arrest, had used the car regularly for almost five years.

Ford presented strong circumstantial evidence that he possessed a key to the vehicle because, it will be recalled, he moved the vehicle from the rear of the house to the street in front of the house shortly after his fiance left the premises and prior to her return. Also, the inference that Ford had a key is supported by the fact that he used the vehicle “all the time.”

Ford’s money was used to purchase the vehicle and he lived in the house where the vehicle was kept. Given the totality of the circumstances, the most important of which was that Ford proved that he drove the vehicle regularly with the permission of the owner, appellant met his burden of proving that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.

Domestic violence call and the inability to locate the alleged victim was exigency for an entry. Commonwealth v. Townsend, 453 Mass. 413, 902 N.E.2d 388 (2009):

We conclude that the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of establishing that the officers’ entry into the defendant’s apartment fell within the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under its cognate provision in art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). Because “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions.” Id. “The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.” Commonwealth v. Knowles, 451 Mass. 91, 96 (2008), quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978). “Accordingly, [the police] may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” Brigham City v. Stuart, supra. See Commonwealth v. Knowles, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Bates, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 217, 219 (1990) (“The emergency exception, which is closely related to the community caretaking function, ‘applies when the purpose of the police [action] is[,] because of an emergency, to respond to an immediate need for assistance for the protection of life or property’ “).

. . .

At the time of the entry into the defendant’s apartment, the facts then known to the police warranted them in having a reasonable belief that the victim was inside the defendant’s apartment and in need of immediate assistance. As to the victim’s location, when the victim was last heard from (by Gralia), at 2 A.M., on March 3, she was inside the defendant’s Lincoln Street apartment. Further, her automobile had been parked outside the defendant’s apartment for several days and, based on the weather conditions and the lack of snow underneath the victim’s automobile, had not been moved. Friends and family of the victim had made repeated attempts to contact and locate the victim, all of which were unsuccessful.