seizure of a vehicle that was transported on a car carrier was illegally searched in items seized when when the vehicle was delivered to the carrier to be transported was there are use some form of contract that was executed with the carrier apparently as i'm understanding it as point out is when a person wishes to have a vehicle transported they go to the carrier this case it was a direct auto service carriers and they pay the fee they get a bill of lading the there's a yellow slip by understand which is what they fill out the carrier keep sat the pink slip is in given to the person who's hiring the services apparently the person receiving the shipment gets that pink slip and when the ship when the implied that the terms war that it would be delivered to a certain address in greensboro on monta lou if i'm saying that correctly st and the individual with the pink slip it was notified it was list is more cost and nada and that was when he was supposed to pick up the well a lot of what i was trying to get at was whether there was any evidence which i'm not aware of in this record that would have indicated that the the record do we know if the record mr costs a lot of this showed up with the title no not who showed up with title who owned the vehicle and his name was on the side well i believe if i recall from the facts it was mr costin i know there was wilmer castaneda was also listed as a shipper and i don't know if the facts and i have to go back i don't know it was not clear from the facts to my knowledge who was actually on the or the ship or was listed obsolete as wilmer cause of the different person well that at least appeared to be but i think further investigation indicated that will mark austin not it was in fact evidence in the record of the well the inference was very strong that that was the same person that's all that was presented in the motion to suppress but it was a conclusion i believe on cross as i brought out their conclusion w come pick it up and a few days later that's whenever mr hosty on those showed up to obtain the vehicle from the what he thought was a wrecker service was in fact he got arrested it was determined that the vehicle was impounded when you give it your car to a carrier what areas of the car do not have an expectation and that's the whole thrust of this when we did our motion is here to the district court position was there is no expectation of privacy that any nobody part of it no matter what right the court did quote a united seventh circuit decision you know is hypocrisy here is what are your judgment legal opinion or whatever you  up on the ramp we would argue and also given the configuration of a car being an open window aside from facts and this is not the case where the car windows were blocked and given a key how they transport that way i guess you could in this case that's not the case appeared there was  was normally we would normally would issue an expectation of privacy i just went up to the car window and looked in the front seat of the back seat wouldn't have an expectation of i would i would think you may have an expectation may someone who was trying to just drive a car in a car ran up to actually go looking in the trunk there's no reason for it is not part of the of the need to transport a vehicle so that we clearly be subjective in the object of i think society recognizes that as a reasonable person you would expect someone who's driving your car onto a ramp tash be going into the trunk there's just the scene in need there was no testimony to that there was no evidence presented that well this could be but again i think the core was pushing the pin it was leaning toward the fall that was his vehicle he was going to say apparently he where is the evidence in the record that your client owned the vehicle or had been authorized by the owner to ship it where's the evidence the record that he had actually whenever the car for the truck was first to lay the carrier he made the phone calls he was contacting katherine roberts asking where's my car where's my vehicle and they were working out and trying to be mr costin as he was actually showed up with title in the bill of lading a saying this is my ford now there was a duffel bag he said that's not mine and so he disclaimed that but he does say that is my forward i paid for it i bought it that's mine so you are referring to the phone conversation between both the phone conversation his coming up with a title in his hand in the bill of lading and saying this is my ford explorer and i need to get it now are you required to put on evidence to show a reasonable expectation of privacy and and argument then the it once you can show there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in the burden shifts to the government because the fourth minute as we point out says that if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and if there is no prejud would believe if we war we did leave what is our position that if we war we did do that by the same configuration and by simply the argument that it was as a vehicle it would be reasonable to believe no one is going to be putting a a scope and i've made that argument also in court that no one is going no one expects to have a scope inserted into their gas tank and looking in there certainly we would not we didn't argue or stand strong in the fact that we do not expect someone to look in past for compartment perhaps fine items and there are no expected expectation of privacy that is reasonable but to intrude into an area that is closed off and is not in the normal course of business is not asked for is not actually access normally then it's our position we did meet that burden and by the fax and cell phone by mr cost you know repeatedly showing up calling and then showing up and saying this is my forward and i got a title and i want  he did show that he did have an interest and expectation of privacy and that ok you didn't and this is not a criticism but you didn't ask the district court to make that finding and in fact the district court made the contrary finding that he didn't have an expectation of privacy which is another way of saying he doesn't have standing right right now what about consent i guess that didn't come up at all right but when the judge at that point when the court determined there was no standing the any of them exactly a search engine actually say that he didn't used that the judge used the word standing he said there's no legit expectation of privacy like i was the end of the analysis i think at that point we did address consent in my argument because i wasn't to speak exactly what the judge was going to go with his decision and so we first argued there was an expectation of privacy it was reasonable and if the court tried and if the government tried to fall on consent as an exception to that search will requirement we were arguing that he didn't have at that point the driver did not have authority to give consent to the gas tank well now sir if you could in the last few minutes in your opening argument why doesn't a driver of  transport vehicle have such a limited and if you will implied authority sponsor to a legitimate request of a law enforcement officer to the search of a vehicle for which he's got to keep in other words you can imagine a drug dog alerted well of course then you'd have probable cause but i'm i'm having a difficult time understanding why this isn't gentleman implied consent even if if i grant you your guy had standing on the one the theory that you you articulate why isn't there implied consent here oh yes can imply consent to where he has access legitimate access to like with anybody that's what he gave up but not that he permit it he permitted the officer to enter the vehicle that's a search of the vehicle that the officer used his little gadget to look into the into the tank but it was still wasn't covered by the consent but you are never the exception to this ritual requirement there's always a scope issue he had consent scope but only to the area where he had lawful access to and certainly would argue the gas tank was not one of them the trunk would be one of i see a bear every exception is so you would treat the gas tank like a lot yes or glove compartment for which the driver didn't have the key because other words you know you have these two keys one works and dipping his micro camera down into the gas tank after tapping on the tank and not getting the kind of sound you would expect to get in a full or half full gas tank why is that the same as the office of prying open a lot glove compartment oh there's no difference except maybe a lot glove compartment i'm suggesting there is a difference makes you tell me why why why why there is no i don't look the only thing with a lot glove compartment there may be a legitimate reason for a car driver carrier driver to go into the glove box not if he doesn't have the key well that's that's my point right i understand he doesn't have authority to consent to opening the glove box that right if he didn't have the key and  interesting analysis later at in the situation reply still argue why was the while would he have authority just a general rule why would a car carrier have to go to gloat box or maybe more legitimate reasons if on the record that was brought out in a motion to suppress in the government's response maybe they could maybe the card maybe they could be submitted saying we always have to go in the glove box because we have to look for something or look for registration or title i'm just making stuff up i'm just trying to see where we are but to go into a gas tank your honor there's i would submit that bihar strain to ever come up with a reason why we ever going to gas tanks or even trump what that day let's hear from the government is carrier has lawful possession of the car if at some point if he's requested by an officer to look into that car i think that person has been granted lawful custody of the car and could consent to the officer looking  where a drug career is given possession of a car the car may not be title to him or her they don't own it but they have been put in possession of that car for the purpose of transporting drugs the car stopped in an introduction stop the courier the person matter well in this case mr bledsoe was given this car by someone and in response to the course earlier questions there is no evidence in this record that this defendant actually owned that car and the ownership of the car as it finding i agree none was made but there's evidence sufficient for a finding if a finding had been made that he had a reason a sufficiently reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle that he had standing to challenge the search  fia now judge kelly for whatever reason never used that word it's kind of odd frankly he doesn't say the guy doesn't have standing he says sort of in a global way he has no reasonable expectation of privacy your honor i think in the record the what about the telephone contact and all of that the tell it doesn't show standing nester wanna be because first of all the telephone contact was taking place and seven or eight days later that the defendant argues that  he was he was that the officer knew at that point that this was the defendant speak up if it was my wife i'm sorry i'm sorry to interrupt but we don't really care what the officer knew right correct question is what were the objective fa regarding who if anybody in the whole world had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this vehicle and that person and so it doesn't matter when the evidence arose what's important i think you agree is the object fact of who owned the vehicle who shipped the vehicle who had constructive possession of that vehicle and was entitled to exercise dominion and control over there be a yes or in the person who shipped the vehicle the person on the manifest who was expecting the vehicle is a person by the name of will  argument your honor because the defendant didn't present any evidence at the hearing as to his expectation of privacy in the vehicle the record shows that when the officer calls d auto service look at trying to trying to verify who if there is a woman casanova he said if this person calls or if you're contacted by someone by this name had that person call me he received a call from a person representing himself to be but just because he showed up on these facts the government would argue that that does not definitively establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle f and the search the car carrier and i'm sorry  did not finish answering your question and i'm sorry and i have to ask you to repeat it well let's go used judge they were says earlier example the glove boxes locked and the key to the glove box compartments where where there is no locked compartment if that search at some point it steps is probable cause then he can't otherwise if it why don't they have to go get a warrant you know and i think we're operating on consent of the facts in this into question which is why i asked the first question someone spec spectator privacy inside the gas tank of the car that would seem to be the quintessential closed  non transparent walk container it just doesn't seem to be an ordinary event of human existence that police officers walk around cars and put t v scopes down the gas tank well i think your hon they do once they do the type of the best a geisha and that deputy roberts did in this case which was when he opened the the doors of the car and looked in the passenger compartment he noticed that bolts had recently been undone and simply in his experience knocking on the floorboard of the vehicle the hollowed out sound in where the gas tank was was supposed to be then alerted him to to the fact that there was something amiss like that when you're ready affidavit get to the magistrate to get a search well your honor then that takes us back to the consent issue well i mean but how can you if there's nothing in the record that shows a contract of conveyance there's no finding by the district court that there was a consent given or the the scope of the consent how does that help you well your honor the issue as as far as the district court was concerned and as far as the government is concerned i whether the defendant who filed the motion to suppress had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle and the district court as the district court saw it and we do not believe the district court erred the district court got it right in determining that the defendant have because our position is your honor just like with the drug or any other drug career when the when the car was turned over to the car carrier mr bledsoe became an unwitting dru career at that point some time so your argument is that essentially the expectation of privacy throughout this vehicle including the gas tank evaporated once the vehicles delivered to the transport yes sir just as the seven hundred what's the principle behind that what if in other words suppose there was no drugs in the tank ok so that the author's own sticks is no camera in there and there's no drugs there would versus a civil action and again i'll go back to a common drug courier a drug courier who may have been hired by a drug dealer to drive a car or there are some drug couriers who have been given vehicles by a person in command of the drugs and told to drive the car across town the car stopped the car is and that person allows an officer to search the car and that's what happened here and it's just tracks are said we have no to a search of the vehicle that's the end of the end of the inquiry right and that's what happened here mr mr bledsoe we don't have any findings of cosette all we have is a has a determination of a lack of arguing and your honor if i could i would again as we have in our brief and the court has said before you in the crowd in case it's almost exactly the same facts here a car is delivered to a car carrier the car carrier alerts the highway patrol as to another vehicle not the one in question by mr crowder the grand prix was originally the car that the car carrier alerted the how we patrol to what's the how it patrol got there and examined the grand prix then the how then the officer asked the car carrier well are you suspicious of another vehicle he said yes the mustang and then the mustang was searched and the seventh circuit we believe your honor rightly so concluded that there  over to the consent and said that they moved over to consent and said even if there had been a finding of standing the consent was valid the was an alternative holding it's an alternative holding just really just chose not to enter an alternative holding but he correctly saying he didn't present any evidence but there's no rule of law that a defendant's standing can only be a stablished by evidence that he or she presents it is in fact more often true than not that a defendant's standing is actually established particularly in a possession case by the evidence introduced by the government and that's why judges often don't spend the time w about standing because usually a person being prosecuted for drugs found in his own car or his own apartment right and so it's one of these somewhat odd cases where ownership i not as obvious as it should be but in fact he's been convicted of possessing with the intent to distribute the very narcotics seized on this vehicle now that doesn't mean necessarily he has standing correct but on the basis of the evidence that your your brother council has put to us i'm hard pressed to understand why that's evidence is not sufficient i'm not saying the district court would have found standing i'm saying it seems to be sufficient there is no standing because the then of his not shown the only car not at our position does not rely solely on ownership of the vehicle your honor there's no evidence that he owned  are position is a legitimate expectation of privacy he didn't he hasn't shown that he ever possessed it owned it or any other that your honor that would allow the argument by the defendant or finding by the district court that he had an expectation of privacy in the vehicle ok and my next question is this is it your argument that because the car was given to a car carrier along with the car keys that he had no expectation of privacy in any part of that car gas tank love bards anywhere that is argument you have two two arguments as to why there's no legitimate expectation of dealer or if you're just a legitimate car dealer it doesn't matter you lose your expectation of privacy doesn't want to that's one of her position and then they shift and this is a problem the court in my estimation run crowder didn't even go until we did keep talking about facts this case but it seems like the court the government's been trying to say all along blanket rule nobody has an expectation of privacy on that carrier when you put your car on there that opens up the credit was due and that opens up a p s box of problems the police can sit on a truck stop and start and request to search every time a car for any reason whatsoever with no basis in can search cars you mentioned the valet in the hotel can be searched and can get police and search my car for no reason car mechanics police can go to every mechanic garage out there knocking the door and say i want to search your car from beginning to end or know your patrons car even though you're doing all change we want to search the trunk this is what this is opening up the better approach fact as was point out by this court case by case you do have an expectation of privacy to certain areas and it's not it it's not absolute you look at the facts the car does get driven on them on the carrier so we that's limited and that's understandable that's acceptable but then where this is officer going based upon the driver giving the key to the officer can he go in the passenger compartment i think so can you go into the trunk of a car i'd say you have to look at the facts and if there's no legitimate reason or is not normal from a reasonable person standpoint from society standpoint that that car driver can go into the trunk then we would say that is an expectation of privacy and it is reasonable your your rights of privacy as you may consent to search access by the carrier and you may designate carriers your age but since you know that evidence is in this record really can't be used i don't think that exists it's like going to a ball stadium anything you bring in there you will be subject to being searched purses everything you've got choice either go in there subject yourself to this search or you don't and there is no proof in the facts and that was for the government we submit to present that that bill of l said you put this car on here you have no expectation of privacy and we can search anywhere and go to your car you take your car to mechanic shop and they send you a waiver so we go through anything and you have no expectation of privacy and we submit that wasn't personal because it doesn't exist so then you got to shift the facts of the case this case here if you're if the court were to hold yes there is an expectation of privacy it is reasonable let's look at the facts of this case now then we shift the particular facts false names to we locate this person so i so it is the problem here that really i don't mean this is criticism of you at all but but do you wish it sort of pressed the district court a little harder to make clearer findings so that you could well he may i think the judge is really was very key i think i think judge who is very clear no one knows lodge an expectation of privacy and that was it i'll admit but see the problem is when we talk about legitimate expectation of privacy we're talking about two different things sometimes we're talking about the question of standing whether this defendant can challenge this search and we're talking about as i suggested to ms harrison as anybody in the world it was a search at all because had read the district court's abbreviated ruling and as frankly argues nobody in the world had an expectation of privacy in this area that's which which is another way of saying there would be no search if nobody has an expectation of privacy because the definition of a search is an invasion an expectation of privacy intrusion to a fourth minute exactly so of nobody in the whole world had a had a protected fourth amendment interest that's not a question of standing there tap on it hear the hollow and then do the search but then we can even get to these exceptions you are pickles the court said there's no there's no expectation of privacy there's been no invasion into a race play into a fourth an issue so therefore we didn't even get to that  point i did argue the consent i did address that but when that was raised that was it's and that's all we're appealing because that's the end and this is our request the court that they do not print such a broad picture about car carriers otherwise we would could end up with the scenarios that i have presented this for so you are we are we asked the court would we argue that the most to suppress that be reversed and that the conviction be reversed as well you are thank you for your time thank you we appreciate your representation of this client i know your