Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): his Fourth Amendment protections. See id. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Crowder did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Mustang after he turned it over to the shipper. The doors were left unlocked, the driver of the car carrier was given the keys, and Crowder knew that the driver would enter the Mustang and drive it. We conclude that no one could have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a vehicle under those circumstances. Although there is no evidence that Crowder directly authorized the driver to search the vehicle, in light of the circumstances described above it is clear that the driver was “authorized to act in direct contravention to” Crowder’s privacy interest. See United States v. Young, 350 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Crowder argues that United States v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding attorney must have express authority to settle a clients claims (B) holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made to companion while seated in police car (C) holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution (D) holding that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a package sent via federal express when the defendant signed an air bill that gave federal express the authority to search the package (E) holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth
Output (English): holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution