A passenger in a stolen car has no standing. \u201cHis argument is that he has standing because he did not realize the vehicle had been stolen or embezzled. He cites no authority for the proposition that a lack of knowledge regarding whether a vehicle is stolen or embezzled is sufficient to confer standing for purposes of challenging the search of the vehicle. His lack of knowledge simply underscores the finding that he had no demonstrated right to control or possess the vehicle.\u201d United States v. Stubbs, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36722 (D. Nev. February 27, 2014).<\/p>\n
\u201cDefendant makes no specific argument to support his generalized challenge to the legality of the search warrant; rather, he simply requested a four-corner review and a determination by the Court as to whether the warrant was supported by requisite probable cause. [\u00b6] SA Drengson’s affidavit articulates an ample basis upon which to conclude that probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant. …\u201d United States v. Edderhoff, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36835 (D. Minn. March 10, 2014).* [Some courts would have denied the motion for failure to make an argument. And, that request doesn\u2019t warrant a hearing.] <\/p>\n
The CI information here was a month old, but it detailed an ongoing marijuana operation, and there was probable cause and good faith reliance. United States v. Giesy, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36481 (D. Kan. March 7, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading