D.Utah: Defendant had no standing as to search of car, but had standing to search of luggage in trunk

Defendant was not the renter of a car and was not on the rental agreement as an authorized driver. He said it was rented by his sister, but he couldn’t name her. So, he had no standing in the car. He did, however, have standing in luggage and a box in the trunk when he asserted ownership of them and objected to their search. A dog sniff gave probable cause, and the automobile exception supports the search. United States v. McCoy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91454 (D. Utah June 27, 2013):

When Trooper Riches removed the cardboard box from the trunk in the vehicle, Defendant informed Trooper Riches that the box was owned by a friend of Defendant and Defendant was mailing the box for that friend. When Trooper Riches continued to remove the box, Defendant further stated that the box was his, and that Trooper Riches did not have permission to open his mail. By these statements, Defendant manifested an expectation of privacy in the cardboard box.

The backpack on the backseat of the car and the gun case under the driver’s seat were both located in easy reach of the Defendant. The backpack contained an identification tag with Defendant’s name and other documents with Defendant’s identifying information. The backpack also contained additional ammunition for the firearm located in the gun case. At the outset of the search, Defendant informed Trooper Riches that Trooper Riches did not have Defendant’s permission to search the vehicle. Based on this statement, the identifying marks, and location of the items searched, the Court finds that Defendant expressed a subjective expectation of privacy in these items.

Numerous courts have recognized that a subjective expectation of privacy in luggage and other personal items is “one that society has recognized as reasonable.”fn10 Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant has standing to challenge the search of the cardboard box, the backpack, and the gun case.

fn10 United States v. Edwards, 632 F.3d 633, 642 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 761 n.8 (1979) (noting that “there is no question of [the defendant’s] standing to challenge the search” where he asserted ownership over the luggage in question), abrogated on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579 (1991); United States v. Buchner, 7 F.3d 1149, 1154 (5th Cir. 1993) (“The owner of a suitcase located in another’s car may have a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of his suitcase.”).