MT: Owner of a stolen car can’t consent to search of defendant’s stuff in it

Defendant stole Dempsey’s car. The trial court decided he had no standing in a stolen car. The supreme court held that Dempsey’s third-party consent to search defendant’s stuff was invalid. State v. Flores-Reyes, 2026 MT 56 (Mar. 17, 2026). [Generally, there’s a lack of standing in a stolen car. § 4.15 n.6-11.]

Pleading a Fourth Amendment claim without facts isn’t sufficient. Alston v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55710 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2026).*

Smell of marijuana and a bong falling out of the glove box was plain view. State v. Sosa-Valdez, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 210 (Mar. 18, 2026).*

In a child pornography case, facts about defendant sending money to the Phillippines a year and a half earlier wasn’t stale. Date restrictions in child pornography cases generally aren’t material. United States v. Marshall, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55794 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 27, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Staleness, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.