United States v. Kennedy
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5137
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Kennedy was arrested on a warrant and a rental car lent by his girlfriend, Fields, was impounded after being used by Kennedy.
- The car was a silver Toyota Camry rented from Kulp Car Rental; Kennedy was not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.
- Police conducted an inventory search of the impounded car and found firearms and 202 grams of cocaine base; a warrant later allowed full vehicle search.
- Kennedy moved to suppress the car evidence, asserting a legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the car's contents.
- The District Court ruled Kennedy had standing due to Fields's permission to use the car and because Kennedy drove it; it upheld the impoundment and inventory search.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit addressed whether a rental-car driver not listed on the rental agreement has Fourth Amendment standing and affirmed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kennedy had Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the car search | Kennedy had privacy rights as the driver and occupant. | Kennedy lacked standing since he was not listed on the rental agreement and had permission only from the renter. | Kennedy lacks standing; unauthorized drivers generally have no expectation of privacy in a rental car. |
| Is Baker controlling or distinguishable on rental-car standing | Baker supports standing for a borrowed-car driver. | Baker is distinguishable; the renter’s permission does not confer privacy where the owner is deceived and not permitting the driver. | Baker does not control; in rental-car cases, unauthorized drivers generally lack standing. |
| Whether the lack of standing forecloses Fourth Amendment analysis of the search | Standing is a threshold matter but the search may still be unlawful. | If no standing, the court should not reach the search’s legality. | The court may affirm on grounds of lack of standing without reaching the merits of the search. |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances could give Kennedy standing | Possibility of unique circumstances granting privacy interest. | No extraordinary circumstances here justify standing. | No extraordinary circumstances; general rule applies: unauthorized rental-car drivers lack standing. |
| Whether evidence admission was supported by sufficiency of the evidence | Kennedy had dominion/knowledge of contraband; conviction supported. | Questioning proximity and dominion requires careful review; possible insufficiency. | Court affirms conviction under plain-error standard; evidence viewed in government's favor could sustain verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baker, 221 F.3d 438 (3d Cir. 2000) (fact-bound standing inquiry for borrowed car driver; owner’s interest matters)
- United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2006) (unauthorized rental-car driver with permission may have standing; criticized here)
- United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2001) (extraordinary circumstances may grant standing in rental context)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing determined by reasonable expectation of privacy, not mere ownership)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (privacy expectations assess societal recognition)
- United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 1994) (authorized vs. unauthorized driver distinction in rental car privacy)
- United States v. Seeley, 331 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam; rental-car privacy considerations)