Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car that was rented by another, defendant had a suspended license, it was, for all appearance, a strawman rental, and it was overdue. This was not a case where a bona fide renter was overdue, and that result would be different. United States v. Alexis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31572 (S.D.Fla. March 11, 2016).<\/p>\n
Where the government said it was not going to use GPS tracking from defendant\u2019s rental vehicles and didn\u2019t, there was nothing to appeal about it because it was moot. United States v. Miller<\/a>\\, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4474 (4th Cir. March 10, 2016).<\/p>\n Merely handing over something without speaking was not an \u201cunequivocal\u201d relinquishment of privacy in it. Remanded. State v. Pilgrim<\/a>, 276 Ore. App. 747, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 287 (March 9, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car that was rented by another, defendant had a suspended license, it was, for all appearance, a strawman rental, and it was overdue. This was not a case … Continue reading