Defendant\u2019s not owning or possessing vehicle on which GPS was installed cost him standing. United States v. Tan, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115258 (E.D. Cal. August 14, 2012):<\/p>\n
Here, it is undisputed that defendant did not own or possess the van to which agents attached the GPS and defendant does not explain how he had any expectation of privacy in the van or its whereabouts. Although Jones is a recent decision, numerous courts have already rejected similar motions to suppress based on a defendant’s lack of standing to challenge the installation of a GPS on a third party’s vehicle. See United States v. Shephard, No. 11-6037, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16163, 2012 WL 3117513, at *5 (6th Cir. Aug. 1, 2012) (defendant lacked standing to challenge placement of GPS on his co-conspirators’ vehicles because he did not own, drive, or occupy the vehicles and thus “failed to show he had any legitimate expectation of privacy in his co-conspirators’ vehicles”); United States v. Barraza-Maldonado, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1022, __, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99992 at *2, 2012 WL 2952312, at *5 (D. Minn. July 19, 2012) (defendant lacked standing to challenge the installation of a GPS on a vehicle because the defendant had only “temporary, nonexclusive possession of the vehicle”); United States v. Johnson, __ F. Supp. 2d __, __, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67294 at *4-5, 2012 WL 1680786, at *8-9 (W.D. La. May 14, 2012) (police officer defendant lacked standing to challenge placement of GPS on the patrol vehicle assigned to him because he did not own it, possess it at the time the GPS was placed, or have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it); United States v. Luna-Santillanes, No. 11-20492, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40532, 2012 WL 1019601, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2012) (rejecting defendants’ argument that they had standing to challenge the placement of a GPS on their co-defendant’s vehicles because they did not present “evidence showing either an ownership or contractual interest in any of the[] vehicles or exclusivity of use such that would give rise to a legitimate expectation of privacy”); United States v. Hanna, No. 11-20678, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11385, 2012 WL 279435, at *3-5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2012) (defendants lacked standing to challenge placement of GPS on co-conspirator’s vehicle because defendants did not own the vehicle, possess it at the time the GPS was placed, or have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it). Accordingly, defendant lacks standing to challenge the warrantless installation of the GPS on San’s van and thus the Supreme Court’s decision is Jones does not merit reconsideration of the court’s denial of his motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading