United States v. Terrell Houston, 689 F. App'x 170

Terrell Jamar Houston pleaded guilty (conditional) to being a felon in possession of a firearm; reserved right to appeal denial of motion to suppress.
Police discovered a firearm in a bag during a search of a rental car Houston had been driving; Houston was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement, though the lessee had given him permission to use the car.
The rental contract authorized only the named lessee to drive and provided that unauthorized operation terminated the lessee's rights.
The district court denied Houston’s suppression motion and sentenced him to 37 months; Houston appealed that denial.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo, construed facts favorably to the government, and applied circuit precedent holding unauthorized drivers of rental cars lack a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the vehicle or containers within it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Houston had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the rental car	Houston argued he had a privacy interest because the lessee permitted him to drive the car	Government argued Houston was an unauthorized driver under the rental agreement and thus had no Fourth Amendment interest	Court held Houston had no legitimate privacy interest under Fourth Circuit precedent (Wellons)
Whether Houston had standing to challenge search of a bag found in the car	Houston argued permission from lessee gave him standing in the car and its containers	Government relied on Wellons that unauthorized drivers lack expectation in containers found in rental cars	Court held no standing to challenge containers in car under Wellons
Whether Wellons should be overruled or limited	Houston sought to distinguish Wellons based on permission from lessee	Government urged adherence to binding circuit precedent	Court declined to overrule Wellons and affirmed suppression denial
Whether circuit conflict affects outcome here	Houston noted sister circuits would recognize standing where lessee permitted use or for containers	Government noted Fourth Circuit is bound by its precedent until en banc or Supreme Court alters it	Court acknowledged inter-circuit conflict but followed Fourth Circuit precedent and affirmed

United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 1994) (unauthorized rental-car driver lacks legitimate privacy interest in vehicle or containers within it)
United States v. Palmer, 820 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2016) (legitimate expectation of privacy requires subjective expectation that society recognizes as reasonable)
United States v. Castellanos, 716 F.3d 828 (4th Cir. 2013) (same two-part expectation-of-privacy test)
United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussion of objective reasonableness of privacy expectations)
United States v. Edwards, 632 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2011) (unauthorized rental-car driver may nevertheless have privacy interest in closed bags in trunk)
United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2006) (unauthorized driver with lessee's permission can have standing to challenge search)
United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2001) (rejects bright-line rule; totality of circumstances may confer standing)
Stahle v. CTS Corp., 817 F.3d 96 (4th Cir. 2016) (panel bound to follow prior panel precedent)