CA11: Def had no standing in a borrowed car he was a passenger in and the search was of the pocket of the driver’s door

“For starters, Black did not have standing to challenge the September 9, 2016, search of the car he was borrowing, and, thus, could not have prevented the fraudulent credit cards within it from entering evidence. The record shows that, at most, Black was a passenger of the borrowed Infiniti; the Infiniti was registered in someone else’s name, he did not pay to use it, and he could not exclude others from using it. Accordingly, Black did not have a possessory interest in the Infiniti, and, therefore, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle’s driver door’s pocket where the fraudulent credit cards were found. Lee, 586 F.3d at 864-65. Moreover, because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the borrowed car, his discussion of other case law is without merit.” United States v. Black, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3718 (11th Cir. Feb. 7, 2020).

Officers were on foot patrol in a truck stop parking lot, and they approached defendant’s running car, and he started to drive off as they approached. They flagged him down and he stopped. The stop was consensual, as was the subsequent search of his vehicle. United States v. Morris, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226596 (W.D. La. Dec. 9, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.