AK: No standing in cigarette case left in stolen car

Joyriding defendant who claimed she did not know car was stolen had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a cigarette case she left in the backseat. Clark v. State, 231 P.3d 366 (Alas. App. 2010):

The prevailing view of cases from other jurisdictions is that a passenger has no expectation of privacy in containers left in a stolen vehicle.FN10 In response, Clark argues that there was no evidence establishing that she knew that Roatch’s vehicle was stolen. But that is not the critical question. The critical question is what information was available to Officer Thompson at the time of the search.

FN10 See 6 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 11.3(e), at 206-07 (4th ed. 2004); Nelson v. State, 405 So.2d 392, 398 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 405 So.2d 401 (Ala. 1981) (holding that passenger in stolen vehicle lacked standing to object to search of vehicle); see also State v. Thompson, 490 S.W.2d 50, 51-52 (Mo. 1973); State v. May, 613 S.W. 2d 877, 881 (Mo. App. 1981); Harper v. State, 84 Nev. 233, 440 P.2d 893, 895-98 (Nev. 1968); State v. Scott, 860 P.2d 1005, 1007-08 (Utah App. 1993); State v. Bruski, 2007 WI 25, 299 Wis. 2d 177, 727 N.W. 2d 503, 511-13 (Wis. 2007) (holding that defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in makeup case he left in vehicle because he did not have permission to be in the vehicle).

Judge Blankenship found that Officer Thompson had probable cause to believe that the vehicle was stolen and that Clark was guilty of joyriding. These findings were adequately supported by Officer Thompson’s testimony about Roatch’s report that Thomas had stolen her vehicle. Based on this information, Officer Thompson could have reasonably concluded that Clark had a reduced expectation of privacy in the containers that were found in the stolen vehicle.

Moreover, Clark apparently chose to leave the cigarette case in the backseat of the vehicle rather than to carry it on her person. Passengers have a reduced interest in containers that they leave in another person’s vehicle.

Capital murder defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a car of another where his duffle bags were hidden. People v. Thompson, 49 Cal. 4th 79, 231 P.3d 289, 109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 549 (2010).*