Defendant was the driver but not the registered owner of the car. He didn\u2019t testify at the suppression hearing, so he had to rely on the codefendant\u2019s testimony to give him standing, and that fell way short. United States v. Flores, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167589 (D. Kan. November 27, 2012)*:<\/p>\n
In considering a vehicle where a defendant is the driver but not the registered owner, “mere possession of the car and its keys does not suffice to establish a legitimate possessory interest.” Id. (citing United States v. Martinez, 983 F.2d 968, 973 (10th Cir. 1992)). Flores bears the burden of establishing that a person with authority over the vehicle granted him possession. Id. (citing United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441, 445 (10th Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence whatsoever to establish that Flores received permission from Ochoa prior to driving the Nissan. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Nissan transferred ownership at any point between September 2011 and February 2012.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading