Case ID: f-appx_543/html/0721-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Robert HARDY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10365.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 2013.
    Filed Oct. 25, 2013.
    Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Pamela O’Leary Tower, Kenwood, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

1. The district court didn’t clearly err when it found Hardy’s consent to the officers’ entrance into the room to be voluntary. See United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir.2007). Hardy wasn’t in custody. There’s no evidence the officers had their guns drawn or told him compliance would be compelled. See United States v. Kim, 25 F.3d 1426, 1432 (9th Cir.1994). And, although he wasn’t told that he didn’t have to consent, he knew he could say no: He twice refused to let the officers in the hotel room and withheld consent to search the backpack. See id.

Because Hardy consented to the entry into the hotel room, we need not address whether Hardy had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it.

2. The district court didn’t clearly err in finding that Hardy abandoned the backpack by denying ownership. See United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.