TN: Def lived in a van left wide open in a public area, but it didn’t belong to him, so no REP as to interior

“In this case, the evidence was that, although the Defendant lived in the van, the van was registered to someone else, and the vehicle registration indicated the same. The doors to the van were wide open and it was parked in a public lot. Thus, the trial court ruled that the Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the vehicle and, therefore, lacked standing to challenge the search of the van and the seizure of the items found inside.” State v. Rodgers, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 315 (May 26, 2026).*

The warrant affidavit mentioned gun parts and a 3D printer shipped to defendant’s place. “Defendant next asserts that the search warrant application failed to establish a nexus between any criminal activity and the Target Location. Specifically, defendant suggests that it is ‘a leap of conjecture’ to assume that gun parts and the 3D printer, all of which were shipped to the Target Location, would be found therein. The Court is underwhelmed.” United States v. Butland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118932 (D. Mass. May 29, 2026).*

Defendant’s Franks affidavit seeking to justify a hearing that he denies what the officer said in the affidavit for warrant is not a “substantial preliminary showing” under First Circuit precedent. This is essentially an effort at cross-examination. United States v. Rivera-Fernández, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118989 (D.P.R. May 27, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Nexus, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.