United States v. Kenyon Walton
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15570
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Walton, on Kentucky parole, was an authorized driver listed on a Dollar Rent-A-Car rental of a Suburban.
- Walton rode as a passenger with Smoot; police stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation and extended the stop for a canine sniff.
- Seven kilograms of cocaine were found in the Suburban following the sniff and subsequent search.
- At the time of the stop, Illinois troopers did not know Walton was on parole; the district court considered Walton’s standing based on alleged license issues.
- The government argued Walton had diminished privacy due to parole violations and a suspended license; Walton contended he had a valid license and authorized driver status.
- The district court denied the suppression motion for lack of standing; Walton appealed and the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Walton have Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the rental-car search? | Walton, as the authorized driver, had a protected privacy interest in the car. | Walton’s parole violation and alleged license issues negate standing. | Walton had standing to challenge the search. |
| Does a suspended license defeat standing for an authorized rental-car driver? | A valid license does exist; standing remains despite license issues. | Lack of a valid license undermines authorization and standing. | License status does not categorically defeat standing. |
| Does Walton’s parole status automatically eliminate Fourth Amendment standing? | Parole status does not strip standing, as in other contexts standing persists. | Parole conditions reduce privacy expectations and may affect standing. | Parole status alone does not extinguish standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walker, 237 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2001) (authorized driver on rental agreement has privacy interests and can challenge searches)
- United States v. Haywood, 324 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 2003) (unauthorized driver with no license lacks standing; nuanced for licensed, unauthorized drivers)
- United States v. Figueroa-Espana, 511 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2007) (unauthorized driver lacking license generally lacks standing; unresolved for authorized driver with license issues)
- United States v. Boruff, 909 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1990) (rental-car standing framed around authorization and license status)
- United States v. Cooper, 133 F.3d 1394 (11th Cir. 1998) (rental-car standing considerations in context of license and authorization)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (conducting Fourth Amendment analysis after arrest; relevance to standing and reasonableness)
- United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2001) (standing for an unauthorized driver with license considerations)
- United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 1994) (standing focus in rental-car context when license status is questioned)
- United States v. Roper, 918 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1990) (considerations of license and authorization in standing analysis)