United States v. William Glarner, III

facts of a case are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d

1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167,

1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not

recite them here.

** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. 2 1. Glarner argues that he had standing to challenge the search of the

Audi. First, we note that the Supreme Court has “abandoned a separate inquiry

into a defendant’s ‘standing’ to contest an allegedly illegal search in favor of an

inquiry that focuse[s] directly on the substance of the defendant’s claim that he or

she possessed a ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ in the area searched.” Rawlings

v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980). Thus, to challenge the search of the Audi,

Glarner had only to show“[through] his conduct” that he enjoyed a “legitimate

expectation of privacy” in the Audi. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1975)

(citation omitted). The government argued in the district court that…