Defendant’s avowed lack of connection to the car he borrowed and was driving was a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Villa-Guillén, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185672 (D.P.R. Oct. 25, 2019)*:
Villa informed law enforcement officers that: he didn’t know the registered owner of the Mercedes, that “he and the Mercedes owner had swapped cars,” Villa however did not recall “the make of his own car,” Villa “had the car for under twenty four hours,” that anything in the vehicle “wasn’t his,” that Juan “El Flaco” lent him the Mercedes, and that he did not know Juan’s last name or phone number. Id. at pp. 7-9. “By explicitly and repeatedly rejecting an ‘intimate relationship’ with the vehicle, Villa undermined his Fourth Amendment protections against the search.” Id. at p. 13 (citing United States v. Fermin, 771 F.3d 71, 76 (1st Cir. 2014) (“It is well established that one who abandons or disclaims ownership of an item forfeits any claim of privacy in its contents, and as to that person the police may search the item without a warrant.”).
His passenger lacks standing, too. United States v. Villa-Guillén, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185651 (D.P.R. Oct. 23, 2019).*