of the circumstances” approach is inappropriate, given the dispositive nature of “totality legitimate possessory interests. B. Even if this test is adopted, the totality of the circumstances leads to the conclusion that the defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy. The Sixth Circuit has stated that a general rule, an unauthorized driver of a “as rental vehicle does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle, and therefore does not have standing to contest the legality of a search of the vehicle.” Smith, 263 F.3d 571 at 586. The Smith court only authorized a deviation from this general rule on the basis of the unique” facts of the case. Of these unique facts, “truly the court emphasized the personal relationship between Smith and the rental company. Specifically, Smith had not only personally called the rental company to rent the vehicle, he was also directly given the reservation number and personally gave the company his credit card number. Id. at 586-587. The court noted that this made Smith the facto” “de renter of the vehicle. Id. No such circumstances exist in the case at bar. The defendant had never contacted the rental company, did not receive any sort of reservation number, did not pick up the car himself, and his wife provided the credit card number. In fact, the only attenuated tie that the defendant can even attempt to muster is that he happened to be a joint cardholder with his wife on the card that she used to rent the car. These facts
“totality of the circumstances” approach is inappropriate, given the dispositive nature of legitimate possessory interests. B. Even if this test is adopted, the totality of the circumstances leads to the conclusion that the defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy. The Sixth Circuit has stated that “as a general rule, an unauthorized driver of a rental vehicle does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle, and therefore does not have standing to contest the legality of a search of the vehicle.” Smith, 263 F.3d 571 at 586. The Smith court only authorized a deviation from this general rule on the basis of the “truly unique” facts of the case. Of these unique facts, the court emphasized the personal relationship between Smith and the rental company. Specifically, Smith had not only personally called the rental company to rent the vehicle, he was also directly given the reservation number and personally gave the company his credit card number. Id. at 586-587. The court noted that this made Smith the “de facto” renter of the vehicle. Id. No such circumstances exist in the case at bar. The defendant had never contacted the rental company, did not receive any sort of reservation number, did not pick up the car himself, and his wife provided the credit card number. In fact, the only attenuated tie that the defendant can even attempt to muster is that he happened to be a joint cardholder with his wife on the card that she used to rent the car. These facts
AHC-PLGL-ASSIGNMENT.docx