Defendant driving a borrowed car failed to show standing. United States v. Maldonado, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76360 (D. Kan. August 26, 2009):<\/p>\n
Here, it is uncontested that neither defendant owned or leased the vehicle. Instead, defendants assert only that the vehicle belonged to a friend, their boss.<\/p>\n
“[A] defendant need not submit legal documentation showing a chain of lawful custody from the registered owner to himself.” Hocker, 333 F.3d at 1209. Where, as here, “the proponent of a motion to suppress is \u2026 not the registered owner \u2026 the proponent bears the burden of establishing ‘that he gained possession from the owner or someone with authority to grant possession.'” Id. (quoting United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441, 445 (10th Cir. 1990)). We consider: “(1) whether the defendant asserted ownership over the items seized from the vehicle; (2) whether the defendant testified to his expectation of privacy at the suppression hearing; and (3) whether the defendant presented any testimony at the suppression hearing that he had a legitimate possessory interest in the vehicle.” Allen, 235 F.3d at 489.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Eckhart, 569 F.3d. at 1274-75. See United States v. Parada, ___ F.3d ___, No. 07-3272 (Aug. 25, 2009).<\/p>\n
In this case, none of the three factors above is shown by the evidence. No link between these defendants and the true owner of the vehicle has been shown.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant’s stop for a single taillight was valid under Pennsylvania law. United States v. Johns, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76507 (E.D. Pa. August 27, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading