Opinion
CASE NO. CR408-208.
December 19, 2008
ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33), to which timely objections have been filed (Doc. 35). The Court has carefully considered the objections, and concurs in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED with the following modification.
The Court concurs in the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant lacks standing to challenge the search of the vehicle because Defendant asserts neither an ownership interest in the vehicle or the seized property, nor is he entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area beneath his seat. Because the Court agrees that Defendant lacks standing to assert this claim, the Court declines to express an opinion on its merits. See Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 340 (2006). Accordingly, the portion of the Report and Recommendation addressing the merits of this claim is not a part of the opinion of this Court.
SO ORDERED.