The USMJ held that deceiving a rental car agency as to who would be driving the car means that the driver has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car. The USDJ, however, declines to follow it and adopts a totality test as more reasonable, finding that the driver had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car he borrowed (but he loses on the merits of the search). United States v. Murray, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50390 (S.D. Ga. May 11, 2011), R&R 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50391 (S.D. Ga. March 16, 2011):<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Court will apply the only remaining framework of analysis, the totality of the circumstances test, because it best conforms with both the policy announced by the Supreme Court and principles of prior Eleventh Circuit decisions. Under this analysis, the Court will consider whether (1) Defendant could legally operate the vehicle and the status of his license; (2) Defendant was able to present the rental agreement and provide sufficient information about the vehicle; (3) Defendant was related to the renter or otherwise had an \u201cintimate relationship;\u201d (4) Defendant had permission of the authorized driver to use the rental car, and, finally; (5) Defendant had a business relationship with the rental car company and the nature thereof. Smith, 236 F.3d at 586-87.<\/p>\n
After a review of the facts of this case, the Court finds that Defendant both had a subjective expectation of privacy in the vehicle and that the expectation was one that society was prepared to recognize. … <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
An unfair labor practices subpoena duces tecum to a union did not exceed the NLRB\u2019s authority nor did it violate the Fourth Amendment. It is reasonable under the circumstances of the investigation. NLRB v. Sheet Metal Workers Int\u2019l Ass\u2019n, Local 293, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50186 (D. Haw. May 10, 2011).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading