Opinion ID: 1692959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Search of Vehicle and Seizure of Handgun

Text: Soukharith argues that Chatfield's search of the vehicle and seizure of the handgun violated Soukharith's Fourth Amendment rights because it was obtained without his consent. The lower court did not reach the issue of consent because it determined that the handgun would have been found during the inventory search performed by Chatfield and Novak. Although the State bases its argument on the inventory-search theory, it is unnecessary to decide the issue. A thief has no legitimate interest of any kind in a stolen vehicle and therefore, does not have standing to challenge a search of such a vehicle. State v. McFarland, 195 Neb. 394, 238 N.W.2d 237 (1976). See, also, U.S. v. Tropiano, 50 F.3d 157, 161 (2d Cir.1995) (defendant who knowingly possesses a stolen car has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the car); Burgeson v. State, 267 Ga. 102, 475 S.E.2d 580 (1996); State v. Otte, 74 Ohio St.3d 555, 660 N.E.2d 711 (1996), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 109, 136 L.Ed.2d 62. As discussed below, Soukharith's conviction for robbery (theft of the vehicle) is supported by the evidence, and thus, we conclude that Soukharith has no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle under the Fourth Amendment.