*2 WYNN, Before TRAXLER and expectation “objective jective privacy is DAVIS, Judges, Judge. Senior Circuit reasonable; words, ly must be willing society Castellanos,

recognize as reasonable.” (internal quotation F.3d at marks Bullard, repository for omitted) private (quoting the vehicle effects, personal sort of a container.” in some enclosed Although “[p]arties other than owners v. Har (quoting at 119 may possess *3 (4th 411, 412 grove, In Cir. 647 F.2d vehicle,” id. at in the of a privacy Wellons, short, with the 834, given the rule of twenty expressly held more than we lessee(s) ago that an driver a in the years unauthorized of the named exception legiti “no rental car —like Houston1 —has a rented vehicle agreement, rental car.” in privacy mate the in con zone the constitution free veritable Wellons, (4th 117, templation of the Fourth Amendment. 1994). the car Accordingly, Cir. a search of attempts to distin Houston’s We find “cannot have unauthorized [an violated Wellons the from una guish instant case rights.” Fourth Amendment driver’s] Moreover, because Wellons has vailing. Wellons, In we also that an unautho held subsequent en banc overruled a rized of a rental car reason driver “cannot this a subse from Court decision ably in a assert decision, it re Court quent Supreme in that “[a] found automobile” because this Circuit and we are mains the law in person who cannot a assert to follow it.2 See Stahle CTS reasonably expect claim to bound a vehicle cannot totality circum Although permission to found based the the 1. that Houston received lessee, standing to chal drive the rental from the the defendant had car stances Similarly, agreement provided lenge the no one other search at issue. Id. that the “general car. The lessee was authorized to drive the rule” adopted the has a Third Circuit agreement provided that lessee’s further of a car driver that unauthorized ter- to use the car would standing challenge a does not to search have agreement's were car, minate if of the terms "acknowledge[d]” but it has also violated. are "an that Smith facts example extraordinary circumstances that note we 2. bound general might overcome the rule.” United per case is se rule established in that 159, (3d Kennedy, Cir. 638 F.3d States v. in conflict with the more recent decisions 2011). Thus, Eighth of the under the law by many In line circuits. reached (and potentially of the Third Ninth Circuits Wellons, the Tenth Circuits with Fifth and Sixth), had the authorized Houston—-who operator of a have held that an unauthorized permission car—would lessee's standing challenge rental car does not to have standing challenge the search issue have to a search of See v. Wor here. thon, (10th 2008); 1173, 520 F.3d Cir. Moreover, 471, although & some circuits have Seeley, (5th 2003), However, agreed Eighth Court that an Cir. an with this n.1 d standing opposite con driver of a car does not have Ninth Circuits have reached the clusion, challenge no to a search of the that per challenge extended this se rule to standing has to circuit has car a permis of containers found within the the car if he she received searches search of Indeed, the Tenth Cir- See United as cuit, did Wellons. sion to the car from the lessee. use Thomas, 1191, (9th the Wellons rule with re- which follows States v. 447 F.3d Best, 2006); spect a of a rental has held that Cir. 135 F.3d United States v. (8th 1998). lacks where an unauthorized driver The Sixth Circuit even Cir. challenge altogether. standing of the he bright-line a search rejected standard Smith, challenge standing a search have United States v. 2001). Smith, bags are found within the car. United noted that as a the court Edwards, 632 F.3d "general States v. rule" an unauthorized 2001) (finding legitimate expecta that the defendant had rental car does not bags, in his tion of in the but nevertheless Corp., formed Officer back, Accordingly, judgment and she for the wanted the car asked court is AFFIRMED. subsequently to be searched. Officers backpack searched the car and TRAXLER, Judge, concurring gun. containing the the result: majority concludes, Wellons As the that Wellons agree I majority binding authority compels to reject us case, I there- dictates result challenges to the search of the concur the affirmation of the dis- fore car. assuming But even that Wellons ruling. regard trict court’s With court, the en borne be revisited should suggestion footnote 2 that our it, do this is the right case *4 overruling add a consider would as the search here was at the conducted majori- those few facts express of request undisputed owner this is ty that I show that of of part the car and of process as case for en banc review. good not a car to returning According- the owner. Enterprise Company, Rent-A-Car ly, I judgment affirming concur in the car to owner of the rental rented the of court’s denial Houston, Alexis Alexis Houston’s cousin. pression motion. only rent- was the authorized driver al the terms of the contract

provided operation of the vehicle

anyone Alexis

terminated rental contract entitled seize no- the vehicle without per- gave Alexis

tice. Houston was not

mission to drive the Houston con- authorized under the rental tract. contract thus terminated Alexis once Houston drove the SINCLAIR, Maurice Carlos contractual any lost she had No. probation agents placed After arrest and under him in Court of keys to a called Charlotte-Mecklenburg Department Police assistance. Officer thereafter April Submitted: Enterprise to called check on the status Enterprise representa- the car. Once the operat- learned the car had

tive driver, she in-

ed cir- which were closed stored in trunk of decisions car); cuits, perhaps see time to consider Bu also United States chner, particular its Wellons—and ("The rental car lacks located in another’s owner suitcase pri legitimate privacy container respect accurately represents so- vacy his suit car—still to the within that case.”). privacy. ciety’s expectations