D.Nev.: Even one without standing in a vehicle he was driving has standing to challenge the stop

Defendant could not show standing to challenge the search of a vehicle by his mere possession of an allegedly borrowed vehicle without showing the authority of the person who allegedly loaned it to him. However, he still has standing to challenge the stop even if the person who loaned it to him stole it. United States v. Gardeley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64260 (D. Nev. May 11, 2010):

Gardeley does not own the vehicle, nor has he established that he was in lawful possession of the vehicle. Although Gardeley claims he was given permission by a friend to use the vehicle, he has failed to show that the friend had authority to give that permission. There is nothing in the record indicating that Gardeley’s friend owned the vehicle or was in lawful possession of the vehicle prior to giving Gardeley permission to use it. Indeed, the record shows that Gardeley’s friend matches the description of the person suspected of stealing the vehicle from a rental agency. Thus, to the extent Gardeley is challenging the search of the vehicle, he has not carried his burden to show that he has standing to do so.

However, it appears that Gardeley’s Fourth Amendment challenge is aimed at the stop, not the search, of the vehicle. Occupants of a vehicle have standing to challenge the stop of the vehicle even if they have no possessory or ownership interest in the vehicle. United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439, 442-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that both the driver and passenger of a vehicle had Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the stop of a vehicle the police suspected was stolen); United States v. Pulliam, 405 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. DeLuca, 269 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 2001) for the proposition that “[a]lthough a defendant may lack the requisite possessory or ownership interest in a vehicle to directly challenge a search of that vehicle, the defendant may nonetheless contest the lawfulness of his own detention and seek to suppress evidence found in the vehicle as the fruit of the [defendant’s] illegal detention.”); United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that the defendant could challenge the stop of the vehicle on Fourth Amendment grounds even with no possessory or ownership interest in the vehicle). Thus, although Gardeley does not have standing to challenge the search directly, he has standing to argue that the initial stop violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence seized as a result of the stop is subject to suppression. Twilley, 222 F.3d at 1095.