The driver of a vehicle has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, but he assumes the risk that the owner of the vehicle may consent to a search. Here, the officers noticed that the ignition had been punched out and defendant had no key. Therefore, it was reasonable for them to call the owner of the vehicle to see whether it was stolen. The owner then consented to a search, and the owner’s consent controls. State v. Vanhollebeke, 2018 Wash. LEXIS 206 (Mar. 15, 2018).
In his 2255, petitioner claimed that the wiretaps were without probable cause. The district court didn’t even talk about ineffective assistance of counsel–it just went to the merits of the search issue and found (1) defendant didn’t overcome the presumption of regularity in a warrant by his general allegations, and (2), even if he did, the wiretap warrant was issued with probable cause. Galloway v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42457 (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2018).*