{"id":1901,"date":"2008-06-21T09:56:15","date_gmt":"2008-03-22T09:09:56","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-22T09:09:56","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1901","title":{"rendered":"Driver of hit and run vehicle he borrowed lacked standing to contest police exceeding owner&#8217;s consent to search"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant had no standing to question whether officers investigating a hit and run by defendant&#8217;s brother&#8217;s vehicle exceeded the scope of consent when they took parts off the truck. It was not his truck, although his brother consented, and the question at trial was whether defendant was driving at that time of the hit and run. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.judicial.state.sc.us\/opinions\/HTMLFiles\/COA\/4357.htm\">State v. Moore<\/a>, 377 S.C. 299, 659 S.E.2d 256 (2008).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant&#8217;s detention was justified by a warrant and thus could not have tainted abandonment of a knapsack. Because none of the bar patrons claimed ownership of the knapsack, the police reasonably could have assumed it belonged to the bartender, who was being investigated. Thus, once defendant denied ownership of the knapsack, he effectively abandoned it, giving the officers the right to search it without a warrant. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisone.com\/lx1\/caselaw\/freecaselaw?searchType=citation&amp;fclSearch=974+So.+2d+65&amp;action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;format=CITE&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;sourceID=&amp;citation=974+So.+2d+65&amp;searchTerm=\">State v. Duplessis<\/a>, 974 So. 2d 65 (4th Cir. December 19, 2007), released for publication February 22, 2008.*<\/p>\n<p>A juvenile was acting suspiciously, remarkably like in <em>Terry<\/em>, casing a store, and furtively going to his sock like a weapon might be concealed there. Following the juvenile into the store was not a seizure. There was reasonable suspicion for a later detention. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.malawyersweekly.com\/signup\/opinion.cfm?page=ma\/opin\/sup\/1005008.htm\">Commonwealth v. Isaiah I.<\/a>, 450 Mass. 818, 882 N.E.2d 328 (2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1901\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}