In Rovnak v. State, 990 S.W.2d 863, 871 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd) the appellant met his burden of showing he had an actual subjective expectation of privacy in the vehicle when he refused consent to search the vehicle. However the court concluded in Rovnak that he did not meet the burden of showing that this subjective expectation was one society would recognize as objectively reasonable under the circumstances, because there was no showing that Rovnak had a property or possessory interest in the vehicle when the signatory was not authorized to give Rovnak permission to use it. The court concluded that there was no showing Rovnak was legitimately in the place invaded, and that Rovnak did not have the right to exclude others because Budget could have prevented him from using the vehicle. Therefore, the court determined that Rovnak's claim of privacy was not consistent with historical notions of privacy. The rental agreement in Rovnak specifically provided that the signatory, under the terms of the agreement with Budget, was not authorized to give another person consent to drive the car. Id.