Non-renter driver not on the contract may still have standing under a “fact-bound inquiry”

Driver of a rental car who was not the renter was found to have standing because he was permitted to drive by the renter. This is a fact-bound inquiry, and defendant showed enough to have standing. However, defendant loses on the merits because the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop and even probable cause based on specific information from a CI. United States v. Dennis, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54526 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2007). On standing:

[After recognizing the split in the circuits:] One court in this Circuit recently considered this standing issue in light of the Third Circuit’s opinion in Baker. In United States v. Kennedy, 2007 WL 1740747, *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2007), the court observed that in Baker, the Third Circuit adopted a “fact-bound” inquiry into a driver’s standing. Id. at *4. Accordingly, the Kennedy court held that Baker “may be read as an implicit endorsement of either the modified bright-line rule or the totality of the circumstances test.” Id. As to the bright-line approach, the court observed: “Despite the laudable qualities of this standard–including ease of applicability–it is a blunt instrument, particularly in an area of law that usually calls for a fact-specific analysis.” Id. at *3.

This Court agrees with the analysis of the Kennedy court. In Kennedy, citing Baker, the Court predicted that “the Third Circuit would utilize either the modified bright-line rule, under which unauthorized drivers of rental cars have standing to contest a search if they have the permission of an authorized driver, or the totality of the circumstances test.” Id. at *4.

In this case, either of these two approaches–the modified bright line rule or the totality of the circumstances test–leads to the conclusion that Dennis has standing to contest the search of the Grand Prix. Dennis had the authorized driver’s permission to use the Grand Prix; he knew the renter and authorized driver, Green, for approximately twenty years; he was alone in the vehicle; he had the keys; and he had been using the car for several hours before the search. Tr. 4/19/07 at 82-83. In addition, there is some evidence that defendant had his driver’s license and paperwork for the vehicle with him at the time of the search. Id. at 84-85.

Officer was pleasant and cordial during the roadside interview that led to consent. His hand gesture was not threatening. Another officer was around but not standing close enough to participate. Nevertheless, the officer had probable cause because of fresh toolmarks around the gas tank. United States v. Villegas, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54557 (D. Utah July 27, 2007):

Here, Trooper Bradford’s observations suggested a strong possibility of a hidden compartment underneath the Mercury which concealed contraband. Relying on his extensive experience as an auto mechanic, as well as his experience and training in narcotics interdiction, the trooper noticed that someone had recently tampered with the gas tank. The fresh tool markings and the new rubber fuel lines and hose clamps, as well as the fact that the strap bolts were different lengths, all indicated a recently altered gas tank. And Mr. Villegas told the trooper he had never altered or removed the gas tank, reducing the likelihood of a valid explanation for the tampering. The trooper testified that the tampered gas tank evidenced the presence of a hidden compartment because gas tanks are often used for that purpose.

Plaintiff’s complaint pled the Fourth Amendment but no jurisdictional statute, so the court assumed § 1983. But, the allegations of the complaint were so vague that the defendants were unable to intelligently respond. Even their claim of qualified immunity cannot be determined. Case dismissed with leave to amend [slightly inconsistent; a case needs to be pending to have an amendment]. Sanders v. Aranas, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54571 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2007).*