X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellee Charles Leonard Parker was charged with felony possession of marijuana found in a car he was driving which had been rented by his girlfriend. He filed a motion to suppress evidence based on violations of both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, �9, of the Texas Constitution. The trial court granted the motion, and the state appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and held that when a rental car is at issue, only the rental car agency, the lessor, can give permission for another driver to drive the rental car. Since appellee had no such permission, he had no expectation of privacy or standing to contest the search of the car. HOLDING:The decision of the court of appeals is reversed and the ruling of the trial court is affirmed. The court disagrees with the court of appeals’ use of a bright-line rule stating that only those listed on a rental agreement as authorized drivers have an expectation of privacy in the vehicle and standing to contest a search. Instead, the court should have considered the circumstances surrounding the use of the vehicle, as well as the nature of the relationship between the driver and the lessee, to determine whether the driver had a legitimate expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable as outlined in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). The circumstances that should have been considered by the court of appeals include the facts adduced at the suppression hearing. The appellee had express permission to drive the car that his girlfriend had rented. There is nothing in the record that indicates that he knew about the terms of the car rental agreement, or that he knew the agreement did not list him as an authorized driver. “His use of the car may have resulted in a breach of the contract between [appellee's girlfriend] and the rental agency, but that does not automatically abolish Appellee’s standing to contest a violation of his constitutional rights.” Given the evidence in this particular case, the court decides that society would recognize as reasonable appellee’s expectation of privacy in the use of his girlfriend’s rental car with her permission, even though he was not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement. OPINION:Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Womack, J., concurred. Keller, P.J., dissented.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.