Just being the driver of a vehicle doesn\u2019t automatically give one standing to challenge its search\u2013more is required to be shown. United States v. Almeida, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2415 (D. Me. January 9, 2012)*:<\/p>\n
At hearing, Almeida\u2019s 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, \u201cFirst Circuit precedent reflects that, in general, \u2018standing\u2019 does not exist to challenge a search of a vehicle when the defendant neither owns nor is in possession of the vehicle in question.\u201d United States v. Paquette, No. CRIM 04-10BW, 2005 WL 850847, at *2 (D. Me. Apr. 12, 2005) (rec. dec., aff\u2019d 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 \u201cstanding\u201d 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\u2019s 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 \u201chistorical use\u201d of the vehicle and that he was able to \u201cregulate access\u201d to it given that vehicle had served as his conveyance for a period of weeks, but on record before court, he lacked \u201cstanding\u201d to challenge the constitutionality of search of vehicle) (internal quotation marks omitted).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading