E.D.Tenn.: Court raises standing sua sponte and holds passenger in a rental car had no standing

The parties did not raise the question of standing, but the court does sua sponte, and it finds that defendant lacks standing as a passenger in a rental car. “In the present case, the Defendant was a passenger in a Hertz rental car. It is undisputed that the driver … was the only authorized driver on the rental agreement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the rental car and, therefore, lacks standing to challenge the inventory search thereof.” Defendant’s claim that the officers should have released the car to her also fails, just in case there was standing. United States v. McCalebb-Pippens, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74767 (E.D. Tenn. May 24, 2010).*

Defendant’s PO had reasonable suspicion to search him in connection with a murder. While he was not charged, he was nearby and he was in a city he was not permitted to be without permission. United States v. Benjamin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74941 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2010).*

Officers approached people involved in a fight just to talk to them, and defendant walked away, so they told him to stop. It was reasonable to do so because it was likely the situation would flare up after they left. United States v. Parker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74733 (N.D. Ind. July 21, 2010).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress his breath test because it would not have been granted. State v. Brewer, 2010 Ohio 3441, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 2951 (2d Dist. July 23, 2010)*:

[*P26] The prejudice prong of the Strickland test requires more than a determination that the motion not made by trial counsel would have been a close call; it requires a finding that a motion to suppress, had it been made, would likely have been granted. We conclude, therefore, that Brewer’s trial counsel was not ineffective for having failed to move to suppress the evidence.