Opinion ID: 2717801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expectation of Privacy in a Rental Car

Text: a) Legal Background In Walker we held that “a person listed on a rental agreement as an authorized driver has a protected Fourth Amendment interest in the vehicle and may challenge a search of the rental vehicle.” 237 F.3d at 849. Indeed, “[a] person listed as an approved driver on a rental agreement has an objective expectation of privacy in the vehicle due to his possessory and property interest in the vehicle.” Id. That is a very clear statement, presented without qualification, in support of Walton’s position. In that case we held that Walker had standing to challenge a search of a rental car that uncovered a firearm and drugs on a passenger. Id. at 848-49. Our ruling did not state whether or not Walker had a valid license, and it does not indicate that the status of the license would have influenced the analysis. We simply stated that “a person listed on a rental agreement as an authorized driver” had Fourth Amendment standing. We must therefore decide whether the suspended license distinguishes this case from Walker. The government, by contrast, wants to resolve this appeal under an expansive reading of Haywood. In that case, the defendant was not an authorized driver of the rental car that was searched, and he also drove the car with a revoked license. We readily concluded that Haywood lacked standing to challenge a search of the rented car: No. 14-1177 13 Haywood was not simply an unauthor- ized driver, he was also an unlicenced one. Haywood should not have been driving any car, much less a rental car that Enterprise never would have given him permission to drive. As a result, Haywood's expectation of privacy was not reasonable. 324 F.3d at 516. The government cites the case for the proposition that “an unlicensed and unauthorized driver does not have standing to contest the search of a rental car.” Appellee’s Br. at 14. But of course, Walton was the authorized driver listed under the rental agreement. The Haywood court necessarily relied on both the fact that Haywood was unauthorized, and the fact that he was an unlicensed driver. Walton’s authorization to drive the rental car distinguishes this case from Haywood. The district court also cited Figueroa-Espana, 511 F.3d at 703–04. In that case the court found that “[i]n addition to being an unauthorized driver, Figueroa–Espana failed to produce a valid driver’s license to either trooper. He should not have been driving any vehicle, let alone a truck of dubious origins, and therefore his objective expectation of privacy in the truck was neither legitimate nor reasonable.” Id. at 704. Again, we noted that the defendant had failed to establish he was authorized to drive the vehicle. The court believed that the question of authorization was unclear, and that the defendant had failed to satisfy his burden of establishing standing. That case is therefore also distinguishable. It is also important to note that all three of the above cases—Haywood, Figueroa-Espana, and Walker—left open the 14 No. 14-1177 question of whether an unauthorized, but properly licensed, driver of a rental car enjoys standing to challenge a search of the vehicle. See Haywood, 324 F.3d at 516 (“[W]e have not addressed the [standing] question with respect to an unauthorized driver.”). To frame the matter more systematically, Walker established that an authorized, (presumably) licensed driver of a rental car had standing. In Haywood and FigueroaEspana, we concluded that an unauthorized, unlicensed driver lacked standing. The question of whether an unauthorized, properly licensed driver of a rental car enjoys standing remains undecided, and we also leave that issue for another day. Finally, this case presents the new, and hopefully rare, instance in which a defendant somehow manages to become the authorized driver of a rental car without having a valid license. We present this information in chart form for convenience. Licensed Unlicensed Authorized Standing Walton’s case Unauthor- Undecided No standing ized Some of our sister circuits have touched upon the specific license issue in this case. The Eighth Circuit recognized the standing of a defendant who drove a rental car with a suspended license. See United States v. Best, 135 F.3d 1223, 1225 (8th Cir. 1998) (an unauthorized driver of a rental car with an invalid license would have standing if he had the authorized driver’s permission to use the car). So has the Ninth Circuit. United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1195–96 (9th No. 14-1177 15 Cir. 2006) (same). But both these decisions also grant standing to a defendant not named on the rental agreement if she has permission from the authorized driver, a situation that we have not decided. On the other hand, courts that deny standing to unauthorized drivers typically do so without considering whether the driver has a valid license. See United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Roper, 918 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. McCulley, 673 F.2d 346 (11th Cir. 1982). The Sixth Circuit is unique in considering possession of a valid license as one factor in the standing analysis. United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571, 586 (6th Cir. 2001). In Smith the court granted standing where the driver was unauthorized, but had a valid license. This case involves a driver with no valid license, but who was authorized. In short, decisions of our fellow circuits are conflicting and of limited help in this very peculiar case. b) Haywood and Figueroa-Espana In urging that Haywood and Figueroa-Espana are dispositive, the government must read these two cases for a broad principle. One possible reading comes from the language that appears in both opinions. Hayward observed that, due to his suspended license, “Haywood should not have been driving any car.” 324 F.3d at 516. Likewise, Figueroa-Espana stated that the defendant “should not have been driving any vehicle.” 511 F.3d at 704. This language points to two possible readings of these cases, either of which, if valid, would require an affirmance. First, perhaps Hayward and Figueroa-Espana stand for the proposition that a driver with an invalid license loses an expectation of privacy in any car. After all, driving without a license is illegal. But that principle cannot be correct. A driv16 No. 14-1177 er of a car does not lose all Fourth Amendment protections simply because his license is invalid. See United States v. Griffin, 729 F.2d 475, 480, 483 n.11 (7th Cir. 1984) (a driver lacking a valid license “had standing to claim that the inventory search of the 1982 Corvette violated [his] privacy rights”); United States v. Fiala, 929 F.2d 285, 287 n.1 (7th Cir. 1991) (a driver whose license was suspended “may properly challenge the constitutionality of [a] traffic stop”). The opposite principle would lead to absurd results. Courts do not resolve car search cases in which the driver has a suspended license by omitting the Fourth Amendment analysis and simply concluding the driver lacks standing. In Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), the defendant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, and his car was searched. If it were true that a suspended license stripped a driver of Fourth Amendment standing, Gant would have been an easy standing case. Instead, the Court proceeded to conduct a Fourth Amendment analysis as to whether the search was reasonable. Although we must take care not to mistake the Court’s silence for its view of substantive Fourth Amendment law, we of course have long followed the same practice in our decisions. See, e.g., United States v. Balanow, 528 F.2d 923, 924 (7th Cir. 1976) (discussing reasonableness of an impound search following arrest for driving with a suspended license). Haywood and Figueroa-Espana cannot be read this broadly. The government’s preferred, narrower reading of Haywood and Figueroa-Espana is that, because a license is typically a prerequisite for renting the car, a driver who lacks a valid license has no objective expectation of privacy therein. See Appellee’s Br. at 14 (“[Walton’s] violations of the terms of the agreement rendered his possession of the vehicle unauNo. 14-1177 17 thorized.”). If Walton lacked a valid driver’s license, the argument goes, he necessarily cannot be an authorized driver of a rental car. This interpretation was the basis for the district court’s ruling: The fact that Walton had a suspended li- cense calls into question the “authoriza- tion” granted to him by Dollar Rent-A- Car. The Government’s argument is well- taken that no car rental company would rent a car to a driver who lacks a valid li- cense. But this reading of Haywood and Figueroa-Espana is almost as problematic. To begin with, it is in tension with the direct statement in Walker that “a person listed on a rental agreement as an authorized driver has a protected Fourth Amendment interest in the vehicle and may challenge a search of the rental vehicle.” 237 F.3d at 849. Walton was the sole authorized driver listed on the rental agreement. Not only that, but Dollar handed him the keys and permitted him to drive the car off the lot. This renders highly dubious the district court’s assertion that “no car rental company” would do so. The government’s standing argument relies on a tension, if not an outright paradox. It insists, with equal vigor, that Walton had a suspended license and that of course Dollar Rent-A-Car would never rent him a car with a suspended license. And yet here we are. Of course, the most likely explanation—although this is speculation unsupported by the record—is that Dollar erroneously believed that Walton did have a valid license. But it is unclear how Walton can reasonably be held responsible for catching the rental company’s oversight. For standing 18 No. 14-1177 purposes, it is typically enough that “the driver is operating [a] vehicle with the permission of the owner.” Johnson v. United States, 604 F.3d 1016, 1020 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[A] driver of a borrowed vehicle may establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle even though that driver is not the owner of the vehicle” because she “has the right to exclude others.”). We do not generally ask if the owner was wise to let the driver borrow the car, or whether the driver operated the vehicle in a way that violated a private agreement between the two parties. The government nevertheless insists that Walton’s defective license voids any real or apparent authorization expressed in the rental agreement. It is true that the written agreement required Walton to “warrant” that he possessed “a valid driver’s license.” But the same form also provides that the “[v]ehicle may not be used … for any illegal purposes, or in the commission of a crime.” It warns the driver in loud print that “ANY PROHIBITED USE OF THE VEHICLE … WILL VOID” the agreement. Walton therefore clearly breached the renter’s agreement by transporting seven kilograms of cocaine in the trunk, irrespective of his invalid license. The government may happily respond that Walton’s cocaine transportation is simply another breach of the renter’s agreement, thus strengthening its argument. But that point proves too much. If Walton lost his objective expectation of privacy in the rental car simply because a police search turned up contraband, then this (again) should have been a very simple case. He, and any other alleged drug smuggler, would be unable to challenge a search of a rental car, whether he had a valid license or not, and whether or not the poNo. 14-1177 19 lice had any reason to suspect him of wrongdoing. That position, aside from significantly circumscribing Fourth Amendment rights, would also contradict the holding in Walker, where the defendant had standing to challenge a search that uncovered a gun in the trunk of the rental car, as well as a search of a passenger that discovered drugs. 237 F.3d at 847, 849. Carrying drugs in the car, as well as a firearm used to facilitate the commission of a drug crime, likely violated Walker’s rental agreement. (Sadly, Walker is silent as to which agency supplied the vehicle, and on what terms.) Our court nevertheless recognized that Walker had standing. The government’s proposed standing exception—that drivers have no expectation of privacy in a rental car if they breach the rental agreement—would swallow the general rule in Walker. Admittedly, at least one court has suggested that a driver abandons any expectation of privacy in a rental car if he commits illegal activity in violation of the rental agreement. The defendant in United States v. Boruff, 909 F.2d 111, 117 (5th Cir. 1990), was not authorized to drive the car under the rental agreement, and this distinguishes his case from Walton’s. But the court went on to note, as an additional ground to deny standing, that “[t]he rental agreement also expressly forbade any use of the vehicle for illegal purposes.” Id. We do not find this second basis for the decision persuasive, especially in light of our decision in Walker. The government’s proposed rule would also lead to other absurd results. Aside from carrying contraband, another use of the car prohibited by the rental agreement is to allow it to be driven “by other than an Authorized Driver.” Walton engaged in this activity by letting Smoot drive. But undoubted20 No. 14-1177 ly many drivers violate that term of the agreement, yet they maintain an expectation of privacy in the car. And the agreement lists all sorts of other prohibited uses. It violates the rental agreement to “push or tow anything,” or to engage in any “willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct,” which includes “carrying passengers in excess of the number of seat belts in the Vehicle,” “refueling the vehicle with the wrong type of fuel, i.e. diesel in gasoline engine,” and “failure to use seat belts.” Many drivers of rental cars must transgress certain provisions of this rental agreement, yet they undoubtedly regard the space inside the car as private while they possess it. An ordinary person would not expect his rental car to be open to public viewing or police inspection as a result. Society is willing to recognize a privacy interest in a car even if the driver does not mind her P’s and Q’s at all times. One caveat is in order, however. Certain violations of a rental agreement may be so egregious that society would no longer be prepared to respect a privacy interest in the car. For example, if the driver kept the vehicle months beyond its return date, it would essentially become stolen. A driver of a stolen car does not have standing to challenge a car search. United States v. Sholola, 124 F.3d 803, 816 n.14 (7th Cir. 1997). But a suspended driver’s license is not as severe a lapse. One would expect Dollar Rent-A-Car to ask the police to recover a stolen vehicle; by contrast, the agency apparently made insufficient attempts to verify that Walton’s license was valid. And the Eleventh Circuit has held that, even if a rental car driver turns in the car a few days late, he nevertheless has an expectation of privacy in the vehicle. United States v. Cooper, 133 F.3d 1394, 1402 (11th Cir. 1998) (the defendant’s “failure to call Budget to extend the due date four days may have No. 14-1177 21 subjected him to civil liability, but it should not foreclose his ability to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to [a] search of the rental car”). This case involves a similarly modest breach of the rental agreement. In light of the above discussion, the dicta about “any car” in Haywood and Figueroa-Espana should be read narrowly. Those cases pertain only to unauthorized drivers of rental cars who also lack a valid license. They do not extend to every unlicensed driver of a rental car. Just as those decisions reserved the issue of an unauthorized driver with a valid license in this circuit, they also did not resolve the issue of an authorized driver without one. c) Application to this Case We conclude that Walton’s lack of a valid driver’s license did not categorically deprive him of either a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car. We now must decide whether the circumstances of this particular case indicate that Walton in fact had such an expectation in the rented Suburban. See United States v. Villegas, 495 F.3d 761, 769 n.3 (7th Cir. 2007) (discussing “the factspecific inquiry into a reasonable expectation of privacy”). One of the central distinctions courts have drawn in similar cases is that between a driver of a car and her passenger. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 149; United States v. Price, 54 F.3d 342, 345–46 (7th Cir. 1995). A mere passenger lacks standing because he cannot prevent the driver or owner of the car from, for example, picking up random strangers and showing them the interior of the car. A driver or owner could invite the police to enter a vehicle, or drive it to the station herself. A mere passenger has no right to ward off onlookers or pro22 No. 14-1177 tect his privacy in a car that he has no power over. Walton, by contrast, was the sole authorized driver of the car. Dollar Rent-A-Car authorized him to drive its vehicle, and Walton used the Suburban in a way that demonstrated he understood it was under his control. He invited Smoot to join him, but he appears not to have shared the car with anyone else. It does not matter that the rental agreement was legally defective because of his illegal activities or his breach of a term in the contract. As a practical matter, he still had the authority to exclude anyone from the vehicle, and had no reason to think Dollar had maintained an immediate possessory interest in the Suburban. An objectively reasonable person would not assume he had immediately lost possession of a rental car simply by, for example, not wearing his seat belt. Walton therefore enjoyed both a subjective and an objective expectation of privacy. d) The Government’s Remaining Arguments The government urges us to consider Walton’s knowing violation of his parole together with the fact that he drove without a license, and rule that those two circumstances combined render his expectation of privacy unreasonable. But we decline to transform two flawed contentions into a single winning argument, as if through some sort of legal alchemy. The government is correct that parolees have a reduced expectation of privacy, and the absence of a valid license certainly affects the standing of an unauthorized driver. But those two factors, even considered together, cannot entirely extinguish Walton’s expectation of privacy as the authorized driver of his rental car. At its core, the government’s argument conflates Walton’s alleged illegal behavior with his expectation of privacy. No. 14-1177 23 Obviously, one should not rent or drive a car with a suspended license, violate parole, or transport seven kilograms of cocaine. But if the Fourth Amendment suppression rule means anything, it must require that the police have a reasonable basis for searching someone other than that—as it turns out—the search uncovered illegal activity. That protection is compromised if Walton loses his standing even to challenge a car search simply because of alleged unlawful conduct that has nothing to do with his immediate possessory interest in the vehicle.