Unlicensed driver has no standing to contest search

Listen to this article

“Haywood should not have been driving any car, much less a rental car that Enterprise never would have given him permission to drive. As a result, Haywood’s expectation of privacy was not reasonable.” Hon. Terence T. Evans Seventh Circuit

The driver of a rental car who lacks a valid driver’s license has no standing to challenge the legality of a search of that car, the Seventh Circuit held on April 1.

In February 2001, Eugene Haywood returned home to Peoria, Illinois, after driving to and from Chicago in a rented car. After exiting the car, and walking toward the front of it, two police officers identified themselves and had Haywood place his hands on the car’s roof.

When asked, Haywood admitted that he did not have a valid driver’s license, at which point he was arrested for driving with a revoked license.

The officers then searched the car. Under the hood they found a white sock with over 250 grams of crack cocaine. In the car, they also found an open, half-empty bottle of champagne cognac.

The officers also found the rental agreement for the car, which was registered to Yatisha Sturdivant, Haywood’s girlfriend, who had given him permission to drive the car. Under the rental agreement, however, only Sturdivant was permitted to drive the car.

After initially being charged in Illinois state court, he was also charged in federal court with conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.

The coconspirator was a friend of Hay-wood’s named Walter Jackson, with whom, on at least three prior occasions, Haywood had driven from Peoria to Chicago to purchase crack cocaine.

In the federal district court, Haywood moved to suppress the evidence found in the car. The district court held that Haywood lacked standing to challenge the search and denied the motion.

After a jury found Haywood guilty on both counts, he moved for a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge, claiming that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The district court denied this motion, as well. Haywood appealed, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed in a decision by Judge Terence T. Evans.

Standing

The court examined the issue of standing within the framework of U.S. v. Walker, 237 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2001), applying a two-pronged test, asking whether there is both a subjective and an objective right to privacy.

The parties agreed that Haywood sufficiently demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy. The question, thus, was whether that expectation is one that society recognizes as legitimate and reasonable.

In Walker, the court held that a person listed as an authorized driver of a rental car has standing to challenge a search of the car, even if he is not the renter, but the court has not previously considered whether an unauthorized driver does.

Other Jurisdictions

Reviewing case law from other jurisdictions, the court found that the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held that an unauthorized driver of a rental car has standing as long as the authorized driver has given him permission to drive the car. United States v. Best, 135 F.3d 1223 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Kye Soo Lee, 898 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1990).

The Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, on th
e other hand, have looked solely to the rental agreement, holding that a driver who is not authorized by the rental company to operate the car does not have standing. United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Roper, 918 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. McCulley, 673 F.2d 346 (11th Cir. 1982).

Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit has adopted a fact-intensive middle approach. United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571, 586 (6th Cir. 2001). In Smith, the court created a presumption that an unauthorized driver does not have standing but found that the defendant’s unique circumstances — he was married to the authorized driver, was a licensed driver, and had paid for the rental car — were enough to give him standing.

The court concluded that it need not choose yet between the three approaches.

The court reasoned, “That’s because Haywood was not simply an unauthorized driver, he was also an unlicensed one. Haywood should not have been driving any car, much less a rental car that Enterprise never would have given him permission to drive. As a result, Haywood’s expectation of privacy was not reasonable.”

The court added, “Unlike the defendant in Smith, there was nothing unique about Haywood’s situation that suggests an exception should be made. Therefore, Haywood lacked standing to challenge the search.”

Conspiracy

	Links Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Related Article Case Analysis

The court then held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the conspiracy charge.

The court found that, in driving to Chicago together, then bringing the drugs back hidden in a towel under the hood and splitting them up upon their return, Haywood and Jackson had a standardized way of doing business, and a continuing relationship.

In addition, the court found that Haywood and Jackson each had an interest in the success of the other, making them more like coconspirators.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the jury could reasonably have found Haywood guilty of conspiracy, and affirmed.

Click here for Case Analysis.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.