The car defendant was in was owned by a G.B. who lent it to a Tanisha because she needed a car. Unbeknownst to G.B., Tanisha loaned it to the defendant, and G.B. had no knowledge of him. Defendant attempted to show standing, but he failed to show that he had permission from anybody to be using the car. \u201cWhile Defendant arguably could have had a possessory interest in the car under Thomas if he could establish that he had permission from the registered owner (\u2018G.B.\u2019) or an authorized person in control of the car (\u2018Tanisha\u2019), see 447 F.3d at 1198, Defendant never identifies the person who loaned him the car, (see Dkt. 50-1). There is no evidence establishing that \u2018Tanisha\u2019 gave him permission to use it.\u201d United States v. Browne, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20181 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017).<\/p>\n
\u201cNothing in the Wiretap Act or its history convinces us the Legislature intended to adopt the Aguilar-Spinelli test for determining probable cause in support of wiretap authorization. Therefore, the trial court correctly applied the Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test.\u201d People v. Camel<\/a>, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 142 (3d Dist. Feb. 21, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The car defendant was in was owned by a G.B. who lent it to a Tanisha because she needed a car. Unbeknownst to G.B., Tanisha loaned it to the defendant, and G.B. had no knowledge of him. Defendant attempted to … Continue reading