United States v. Almeida, III
748 F.3d 41 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle sufficient to challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment if their connection to the vehicle is merely as a passenger or a temporary driver without ownership, a history of regular use, or significant control over the vehicle.
Facts:
- Detective Maurice Drouin stopped a Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck that was registered to a third party, Maynard Martin.
- At the time of the initial traffic stop, Anthony Almeida was driving the truck with the owner's son, John Martin, in the passenger seat.
- Almeida provided false identification to Detective Drouin.
- After discovering the deception, Detective Drouin located and stopped the truck a second time.
- During the second stop, John Martin was driving and Almeida was the passenger.
- Both Almeida and Martin were arrested for identity-related offenses.
- Almeida did not own the truck and presented no evidence that he had used the vehicle on other occasions or exercised control over it beyond briefly driving it with Martin present.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Almeida was charged in the U.S. District Court with possessing counterfeit obligations of the United States.
- Almeida filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of the truck, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment.
- A Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing and issued a recommended decision to deny the motion to suppress.
- The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying Almeida's motion.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Almeida of the charge.
- Almeida, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the denial of his suppression motion, among other issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who is sometimes a passenger and sometimes a driver of a vehicle he does not own, and for which he has not shown a pattern of repeated use or control, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle sufficient to challenge its search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Stahl
No. A person in Almeida's position, having only a 'casual possession' of the truck, does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore cannot challenge the vehicle's search. The Fourth Amendment's protections apply only when a defendant can demonstrate a personal, reasonable expectation of privacy, which in the context of a vehicle requires a property or significant possessory interest. Merely being a passenger or a temporary driver with the owner's son present is insufficient to establish such an interest. The court applied a multi-factor test considering ownership, control, and historical use, finding that Almeida's connection was too 'informal and temporary.' The court explicitly rejected the argument that the presence of incriminating evidence in a location automatically creates an expectation of privacy, as that would contravene established Fourth Amendment doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle that one does not own. It clarifies that 'casual possession,' such as driving a car with the owner's permission on a single trip while the owner's representative is present, is insufficient to grant standing to challenge a search. The ruling solidifies the principle that defendants must provide specific evidence of a substantial connection, like a history of regular use or sole control, to claim Fourth Amendment protection. This precedent makes it more difficult for non-owner drivers and passengers to suppress evidence found in vehicles, thereby narrowing the scope of Fourth Amendment standing in the automotive context.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Almeida, III