Overview of Vehicle Standing
When dealing with the occupants of a vehicle, we need to pay particular attention to standing. Clearly, a person has standing to challenge the search of his or her vehicle, but beyond that, it is not that simple.
Sole Occupant
If a suspect is in lawful possession of a vehicle, then that person can challenge the search. But remember from previous posts, it is the defendant’s burden to prove standing. Mere possession is insufficient to meet this burden.
Passengers
Now, if a suspect is a passenger riding in another’s car, then that passenger typically does not have standing to challenge the search of that car (like the trunk, under the seats, or glove box). If the passenger has an item in the vehicle such as a suitcase or purse, then the passenger would have the same standing to challenge that search as if the passenger was possessing those items outside of the vehicle.
Rental Cars
Suppose (as often happens) a defendant is driving a rental vehicle rented by a third party. The 10th Circuit has held that this unauthorized driver lacks standing to contest a search of that vehicle rented by another. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has a case that seems to indicate if the defendant simply says he the renter gave him permission to drive that car, the driver would have standing unless the vehicle was reported stolen.
Legal Supplement
Rakas v. Illinois., 439 U.S. 128 (1978),
Mere passengers typically do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the glove compartment, under the seat of a car or in the trunk of the automobile.
U.S. v. Salvucci, 448 US 83 (1980),
Mere possession of a seized good does not confer standing. Standing is solely based on whether the defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched.
U.S. v. Obregon, 748 F 2d 1371 (10th Cir.1984),
[The court upheld the denial of standing of] “a defendant in sole possession and control of a car rented by another whom he claims to have voluntarily delivered the car to him …”
State v. Bass, 2013 OK CR 7, ¶9,
Although the defendant, the sole occupant, was not listed on the rental agreement, he told the officer that he had permission of the person on the contract to drive the van and the van had not been reported stolen.
