D.Md.: Using def’s key fob to find his car did not violate a REP

Using defendant’s key fob on the key removed from him in a search incident did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy and was reasonable. United States v. Gardner, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196575 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2022):

As to the officers’ subsequent use of the key fob to identify the car, a person has, at best, a “diminished expectation of privacy” in the identity of his vehicle. See United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281, 103 S. Ct. 1081, 75 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1983) (noting general “diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile”); United States v. Cowan, 674 F.3d 947, 955-57 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that a defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the identity of his car, meaning that the use of a lawfully seized key fob to identify the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment). Here, Mr. Gardner’s vehicle was parked on a public street in plain view, within walking distance of his drug trafficking activity. The officers could have identified the vehicle as Mr. Gardner’s by other means, such as surveilling him when he left the block. Given the minimal expectation of privacy in the identity of his vehicle parked in public view, and the comparative government interest in identifying a readily mobile object suspected of being used to store narcotics, the officers’ use of the key fob in this instance did not offend the Fourth Amendment. See Cowen, 674 F.3d at 955-57; United States v. Dasinger, 650 F. App’x 664, 671-72 (11th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding that the use of a key fob to locate a defendant’s car was reasonable because any supposed privacy interest in the car’s identity “was outweighed by the officers’ legitimate interest in investigating the signs of criminal activity”).

This entry was posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.