People v. Sotelo
2014 CO 74
Colo.2014Background
- Sotelo, an unauthorized driver, was stopped by a Colorado State Patrol trooper during a traffic stop in a Hertz rental car.
- Three gift-wrapped packages were found in the car during a vehicle inventory; contents described by Sotelo and Mireles did not match package sizes.
- A K-9 dog later alerted to the trunk; a warrant was obtained and 57 pounds of marijuana were found.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, ruling the packages were detained over 90 minutes before the alert, and Sotelo lacked standing.
- The People appealed, arguing Sotelo had standing to challenge the detention and search of the packages notwithstanding her unauthorized-driver status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unauthorized rental-car drivers have standing | Sotelo had legitimate privacy interest in the packages. | Unauthorized drivers lack standing to challenge searches of items inside the car. | Yes; Sotelo had standing to challenge the search of the packages. |
| Appropriate standing standard in rental-car context | Totality-of-circumstances supports privacy interests in contents. | Only owner/policy-based interest governs standing. | Totality-of-circumstances governs standing; unlawful ownership is not dispositive. |
| Distinction between standing to challenge car search vs. contents inside | Contents within a rental car may be protected even if car access is unauthorized. | Different inquiries; lack of standing for car search should control. | Separate inquiries; standing can exist for contents within even if car cannot be challenged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing depends on legitimate expectation of privacy, not ownership)
- Edwards v. United States, 632 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2011) (unauthorized driver may have standing for contents inside car when renter present)
- Worthon, 520 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2008) (no standing for bags when no authorized driver present)
- Suttles, 685 P.2d 183 (Colo. 1984) (focus on legitimate expectation of privacy in areas searched or items seized)
- Oates, 698 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1985) (objective component of privacy expectation varies with societal norms)
- Tufts, 717 P.2d 485 (Colo. 1986) (sealed/contained personal items support privacy expectations)
- Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411 (4th Cir. 1981) (rejects bright-line rule denying privacy in a bag within a vehicle)