D.Kan.: Driving another person’s car some other times doesn’t give standing

Merely driving another person’s car some doesn’t give standing. “Defendant (like the defendants in Rakas) has neither a property nor possessory interest in the vehicle and thus lacks standing to challenge the search of it. He did not have a property interest in Foster’s vehicle because the vehicle was registered to Foster, she was on the vehicle title, and she made payments on the vehicle. They were not married, and they did not own property together. Defendant also lacked a possessory interest in the vehicle at the time of the search. Foster was driving at the time of the encounter.” United States v. Harrison, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119055 (D. Kan. July 8, 2024).

During a SWAT raid, decedent was asleep on the couch with a gun in his hand. When he woke from the commotion, he was killed when they saw the gun. Motion for judgment on the pleadings, with thus far undisputed facts denied. “Plaintiffs allege facts plausibly showing that Officer Hanneman’s use of force violated Amir’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. As presented at this stage, the body-worn-camera videos show Amir was armed, but they do not conclusively establish that Amir’s actions justified the use of deadly force. The City’s only argument for its separate dismissal depends on Officer Hanneman’s dismissal. Regardless, Plaintiffs allege plausible claims against the City. And Plaintiffs’ wrongful-death claim survives because the official-immunity rules by which this claim is judged under Minnesota law are comparable to the qualified-immunity inquiry under federal law.” Wells v. Hanneman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118832 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024).*