CA5: Person not owner of vehicle had no standing to contest placement of GPS on it

Defendant was neither the owner of the vehicle nor the target of the investigation, and he had no standing to challenge placing a GPS device on the truck. United States v. Hernandez, 647 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011):

Moreover, the government did not place the GPS device with the intent of tracking Hernandez. (Angel, on the other hand, was under court-approved surveillance by wiretaps.) There is no suggestion that the government knew Hernandez would drive the truck to California on a drug run. Hernandez “has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure.” Rakas, 439 U.S. at 130 n.1. He has not demonstrated that he had “a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143. Any expectation of privacy he might have is not based in “concepts of real or personal property law” or “understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Carter, 525 U.S. at 88. Thus, Hernandez lacks standing to challenge the placement of the GPS device.

Warrant for a particular place with the plaintiff’s logo on the door within a multiple occupancy building satisfied the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The officer had been investigating the target for two years. Signature Pharmacy, Inc. v. Wright, 438 Fed. Appx. 741 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*