The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of United States v. Christopher Montalvo-Flores, finding that the District Court should have found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car he was operating. The evidence from the suppression hearing showed that his girlfriend loaned him the car, but it also showed that he did not sign the rental paperwork and he did not have a driver’s license. Nonetheless, the Court found that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and therefore could challenge an unlawful search of that vehicle.

The Facts of Montalvo-Flores:

In November 2019, officers executed an arrest warrant at a hotel in New Jersey for Montalvo-Flores, the defendant, in connection with his suspected involvement in a robbery. A search incident to arrest of the defendant yielded keys to an Enterprise rental car that was leased by his girlfriend. Although the defendant insisted that the keys were his, officers had knowledge that the defendant did not have a valid driver’s license. Police officers located the car in the hotel parking lot, they discovered that it was not reported lost or stolen, and they learned that its registered owner was Enterprise Rental Car Company. Earlier that day, police officers observed the girlfriend give the defendant the keys. They also observed the defendant operating the rental car.

Police officers then called Enterprise’s regional risk manager to obtain permission to search the car. The officers told Enterprise’s manager that the defendant was operating the car while involved in criminal activity. The Enterprise manager, noting that the rental contract prohibited the use of the car for criminal purposes and that the defendant was not listed on the rental agreement, purported to give officers consent of the lessee, the girlfriend, to search the car. Inside the car, officers found 304 grams of cocaine in the trunk and $35 in the center console. As a result, the defendant was charged with possession of intent to distribute cocaine in federal court.

The Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and money that officers recovered after searching the rental car. He argued that he lawfully possessed and controlled the car based on permission to use the car given to him by his girlfriend. In response, the government acknowledged that the girlfriend gave him permission to operate it, but the prosecution asserted that police lawfully searched the car without a warrant because the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy due to his lack of a valid driver’s license and the fact that he was not listed on the car’s rental agreement. The government also argued that the police had consent from the car’s registered owner, Enterprise, to search the car. The United States District Court held a hearing on the motion to suppress ion order to determine the legality of the search and whether the drugs and money would be admissible at trial.

The Suppression Hearing

During the suppression hearing, the officers acknowledged that the defendant’s girlfriend rented the car and that the defendant possessed the keys. Detective Holmes, the main witness for the government, testified that prior to the search, fellow officers observed the girlfriend giving the defendant the car and that fellow officers observed the defendant operate the car. The government also acknowledged the defendant’s possession of the car when a witness for the government testified that he called Enterprise and told the agent that the person operating the car did not have a license, had warrants, and was part of an armored truck robbery. The officers used the keys to open the car and found the cocaine and cash that the defendant moved to suppress after the Enterprise agent gave permission to search.

The District Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that he lacked standing because he failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. The District Court based its opinion on Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018). The District Court concluded that, contrary to evidence given at the suppression hearing, the defendant “was never observed possessing, operating, or otherwise exercising any sort of control over the rental vehicle aside from possessing the keys thereto.” After the denial of the suppression hearing, the Defendant proceeded by way of stipulated bench trial. The District Court found him guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to 40 months of incarceration followed by three years’ supervised released. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. It found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s rental car. The Court of Appeals opined that there was clear error in the District Court’s factual finding that the Defendant “was never observed possessing, operating, or otherwise exercising any sort of control over the rental vehicle aside from possessing the keys thereto.”

The Court began by citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) in explaining that when making a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis, a trial court must begin with a two-prong approach to determine first, whether the defendant “exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and second, whether his expectation was one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” The Court noted that the defendant bears the burden of proving each element.

In finding a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Third Circuit based its opinion on the unrebutted testimony of the detective. That testimony showed the defendant proved the first prong when the officers took his keys from him and he exclaimed “those are my rent-a-car-keys!” Officers needed the keys to open the locked car parked outside his hotel. This showed that the defendant believed he had privacy in the car and took steps to preserve his privacy.

During its analysis of the second prong, the Court explained that when deciding whether the expectation of privacy is reasonable, a must make a fact-based analysis dependent on the strength of the defendant’s interest in the car and the nature of his control over it, noting that ownership is not necessary. The Third Circuit cited a case where the Supreme Court held that “the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.” Noting that “one who . . . lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude.” The Appeals Court listed several facts to show that the defendant’s expectation of privacy was reasonable, noting: the lessee, the girlfriend, was the defendant’s girlfriend; she gave the car’s keys to him; he possessed the keys when arrested; the car was parked outside his hotel room; it was locked; and he was observed by police possessing and operating it. The Court reasoned that the context strongly suggested that the defendant had dominion and control of the car with his girlfriend’s permission finding the District Court’s determination was clear error.

Because the Appeals Court found the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, the government needed to justify its warrantless search at the suppression hearing by showing probable cause to search the car. The Appeals Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress, and it ordered the case be remanded for further proceedings. This case demonstrates the fact-specific nature of suppression hearings and how a good attorney can establish a legitimate privacy interest through tactical cross-examination. This ruling shows that while a defense attorney may do a good job through skillful cross-examination in establishing a legitimate privacy interest of the defendant, trial courts do not always make the proper rulings. This case recognizes that while the initial battle may be lost the war for innocence does not stop at “guilty.”

Facing criminal charges or appealing a conviction in state or federal court? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.