D.Me.: Just being a driver of a vehicle doesn’t guarantee standing

Just being the driver of a vehicle doesn’t automatically give one standing to challenge its search–more is required to be shown. United States v. Almeida, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2415 (D. Me. January 9, 2012)*:

At hearing, Almeida’s counsel argued that his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Silverado because, when Drouin first stopped the vehicle, Almeida was driving it and, as a result, was in exclusive control of it. However, “First Circuit precedent reflects that, in general, ‘standing’ does not exist to challenge a search of a vehicle when the defendant neither owns nor is in possession of the vehicle in question.” United States v. Paquette, No. CRIM 04-10BW, 2005 WL 850847, at *2 (D. Me. Apr. 12, 2005) (rec. dec., aff’d May 2, 2005) (footnote and citation omitted). As counsel for the government suggested at hearing, the mere fact that Almeida was driving the vehicle during the initial traffic stop is insufficient to confer “standing” to challenge its search, particularly in circumstances in which Martin was found driving it a short time later. See, e.g., id. at *2-*3 (defendant lacked standing to challenge search of vehicle’s trunk when he was neither the owner nor the individual in exclusive possession of the vehicle; conceivably, he might have been able to establish both “historical use” of the vehicle and that he was able to “regulate access” to it given that vehicle had served as his conveyance for a period of weeks, but on record before court, he lacked “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of search of vehicle) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.