One innocently driving a stolen vehicle generally doesn\u2019t have standing in it. If, however, he innocently buys a stolen vehicle and then he\u2019s stopped in it, it\u2019s his burden to show that he was an innocent purchaser to acquire standing. Here, he failed. The court relies on United States v. Cates, 641 F. Supp. 2d 613, 615 (N.D. Tex. 2009), which is similar. United States v. Austin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104556 (D. S.C. June 22, 2018).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s motion for return of his cell phone is granted because the government doesn\u2019t need it as evidence any more. United States v. Spraggins, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103815 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One innocently driving a stolen vehicle generally doesn\u2019t have standing in it. If, however, he innocently buys a stolen vehicle and then he\u2019s stopped in it, it\u2019s his burden to show that he was an innocent purchaser to acquire standing. … Continue reading