# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 25 76

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Co dy Allen Nowak

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 12 , 20 16 Fil ed : J un e 1 7, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, BEAM, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Co dy All en Nowak was co nv ic te d of bei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Th e d i s t r i c t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n to 1

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Vero ni ca L. Duf

fy
, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of So ut h Dak ot a.su pp res s. Aft e r en te rin g a co nd it io na l pl ea of gu il ty, Nowak was se nt en ced to 27

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t an d 2 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Nowak ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s, al le gi ng th at po li ce of fic ers v i o l a t e d hi s Fo ur th
Am e n d men t r ig ht s by se arch in g hi s ba ck pa ck wit ho ut a warra nt

. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, an d fi nd in g n o e rro r, we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

On Aug us t 7, 20 14
, Nowak as ke d hi s fri en d Harry Mad se n fo r a rid e. Nowak

go t in to th e fro nt pa ss en ge r se at of Mad se n’s car an d pl aced hi s ba ck pa ck on th e flo or in fro nt of hi m

. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, Mad se n was pu ll ed ov er by Offi cer Sco tt Van de r Veld e wit h th e Si ou x Fal ls
, So ut h Dak ot a, Po li ce D e p a r tm en t, be cau se hi s li cen se pl at e ta gs were ex pi red

. Wh en Nowak go t ou t of th e car, Offi cer Van de r Veld e

reco gn iz ed hi m an d to ld hi m to ge t ba ck in to th e car. Nowak di d so

. Bu t whe n Van de r Vel de ret ur ne d t o h is pa tro l car to co nt act di sp at ch , No wak ex it ed th e car a

se co nd ti m e an d ra n fr om th e sc en e.

Offi cer Van d e r V e l d e di d no t pu rs ue Nowak

. In st ead
, he sp ok e to Mad se n, who ga ve Offi cer Van de r Veld e pe rm is si on to se arch th e car. Offi cer Van de r Veld e fo un d No wak ’s bac kp ack on th e fl oo r in fro nt of t he pa ss en ge r se at . Vand er Vel de

a s k e d Mad se n if th e ba ck pa ck was Nowak ’s. Mad se n sa id “ y ea[h ], th at w a s h i s ba ck pa ck ,” an d “ [t]ha t’s n ot m in e.”

Two ot he r of

fic ers can va ss ed th e area lo ok in g fo r Nowak
, bu t di d no t fin d hi m

. N o wak di d no t ret ur n to th e sc en e du rin g th e ap pr ox im at el y twen ty-fou r m in ut e
tra ffi c st op

. In si de th e ba ck pa ck
, Van de r Veld e fo un d a Hi-P oi nt .45 cal ib er ha nd gu n
wrap pe d i n a ba nd an a.

Nowak m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce of th e fir earm , al le gi ng th at th e wa rr an tle ss

se arch of h is ba ck

pa ck was a vi ol at io n o f hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o b e fre e o f

-2

-un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es

. At th e su pp res si on he ari ng , Offi cer Van de r

Veld e te st ifi ed
, an d th e go ve rn m en t of fere d an au di o reco rd in g of th e t r a f f i c s t op

. The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on th at th e m ot io n be de ni ed
, fin di ng th at Nowak ha d ab an do ne d th e ba ck pa c k a n d th us ha d no pr iv acy in te res t i n i ts co nt en ts . Nowak ti m el y ap pe al ed

.

II . Dis cus si on

Nowak al le ge s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g h i s mo t io n to su pp res s, be cau se he di d no t aban do n th e ba ck pa ck an d b ecau se an y

co ns en t M ad se n g av e to th e of fic ers di d no t ex te nd to hi s ba ck pa ck

. W he n co ns id eri ng th e de ni al of a m ot io n
to su pp res s ev id en ce, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r,

an d th e ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n of whe th er a F ou rth Am en dm en t vi ol at io n oc cu rred de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 77 7 F.3 d 10 13
, 1 0 1 5 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Ste ph en so n, 9 24 F.2d 75 3, 7 58 (8t h C ir. 1 99 1) ).

“ W e ta ke up th e ab an do nm en t is su e fir st be cau se ou r res ol ut io n of th e qu es ti on

co ul d m ak e it un ne ces sa ry fo r us to de ci de th e ot he r is su es on ap pe al .” Uni te d St at es

v. Liu , 1 80 F.3 d 95 7, 96 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) ( c i t i n g U n i t e d St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 14 6
F.3 d 53 6, 53 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )). To pr ev ai l on hi s m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce of th e
gu n, N o w a k mu s t sh ow th at he ha d a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in hi s ba ck pa ck

. Uni te d St at es v. Hay es , 12 0 F.3 d 7 3 9
, 7 4 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). The Fo ur th
Am en dm en t is no t im

pl ic at ed by a se arch of pr op e r t y t ha t ha s be en ab an do ne d be cau se a de fen da nt who ha s ab an do ne d hi s pr op ert y “ ‘has rel in qu is he d h [ i s]

reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy.’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Ja m es , 53 4 F.3 d 86 8, 87 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Tug well , 1 25 F.3 d 60 0,
60 2 (8 th Cir . 19 97 )).

W he th er p r o p e r t y ha s be en ab an do ne d “ is de te rm in ed on th e ba si s of th e ob jecti ve fact s av ai la bl e to th e in ve st ig at in g of fic ers , no t on th e ba si s of th e own er’s

-3

-su bjec ti ve in te nt .” Id .; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Bas in sk i, 22 6 F.3 d 82 9, 83 6– 37 (7 th

Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ [I]t do es n o t mat t e r whe th er th e de fen da nt ha rb or s a de si re to la te r recl ai m an it em ”). W e co ns id er th e du al fact or s of whe th er th e de fen da nt ph y si cal ly rel in qu is he d hi s pr o p e r t y an d whe th er he de ni ed own ers hi p of it

. Uni te d St at es v. Si m ps on , 43 9 F.3 d 49 0, 49 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Howev er, a ve rb al de ni al of own ers hi p is no t ne ces sa ry fo r a fin di ng of ab an do nm en t, an d we reac h ou r ul ti m at e co nc lu si on ba se d on th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an c e s

. S e e i d

. ; Liu
, 18 0 F.3 d at 96 0 (ci ti ng Cal ifo rn ia v. Ho da ri D., 4 99 U.S. 62 1, 6 24 (19 91 )).

Nowak di d no t de ny own ers hi p of th e ba ck pa ck bu t he ph y si cal ly rel in qu is he d it when he fle d t he sce ne of t he tra ffi c st op , lea vi ng th e ba ck pa ck be hi nd in th e car

. Nowak at te m

pt s to ne ut ral iz e hi s fli gh t by arg ui ng th at be cau se he di d no t le av e th e ba ck pa ck in a pu bl ic pl ace, he di d no t ab an do n it

. Nowak ci te s to Bas in sk i in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t th at pr op ert y le ft in a pr iv at e, as op po se d t o a pu bl ic , p la ce ha s no t be en ab a n d o n e d

. B u t i n Bas in sk i, th e own er of a br ie fcas e ga ve it to hi s fri en d fo r

sa fek eep in g an d th en ex pl ic it ly in st ru ct ed th e fri en d to de st ro y it

. Bas in sk i, 22 6 F.3 d

at 83 2, 83 7– 38

. Nowak le ft hi s ba ck pa ck in Mad se n’s car, bu t un li ke Bas in sk i, he di d

no th in g to “ de m on st rat e[] a st ro ng de si re to pr es erv e bo th hi s po ss es so ry an d pr iv acy in te res ts .” Bas in sk i, 2 26 F.3d at 8 37

.

“ [A] pe rs on do es no t ab an do n hi s pr op ert y m e r e l y b e c a us e he gi ve s it to

so m eo ne el se to st or e” or ke ep watc h ov er. Uni te d St at es v. Ja m es , 35 3 F.3 d 60 6, 61 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Bas in sk i
, 2 2 6 F.3 d at 83 7)

. “ [W] e ha ve he ld th at sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns fro m th e own er to de st ro y pr iv at e m at eri al s are ‘th e ul ti m at e

m an ife st at io n of pr iv acy, no t ab an do nm en t. ’” Uni te d St at es v. Tho m as , 45 1 F.3 d
54 3, 54 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Ja m es , 35 3 F.3 d at 61 6)

. Bu t Nowak ga ve no su ch in st ru ct io n to Mad se n he re. Nor di d he as k Mad se n to st o r e o r sa feg ua rd th e ba ck pa ck fo r hi m

. In de ed
, he sa id no th in g at al l to Mad se n whe n he ran fro m th e car, le av in g th e ba ck

pa ck be hi nd an d l e av in g Mad se n “ am azed ” at Nowak ’s fli gh t.

-4

-Mad se n to ld th e of fic ers he di d no t ev en kn ow why Nowak ha d wan te d a rid e in th e fir st pl ace.

In th is cas e, th ere is si m pl y no ev id en ce th at N o wak ga ve an y in di cat io n

–

ve rb al or ot he rwis e – th at he in te nd ed fo r Mad se n (o r an y on e el se ) to ta ke care or
po ss es si on of th e ba ck

pa ck in hi s ab se nc e su ch th at hi s pe r s o n a l be lo ng in gs wou ld

rem ai n pr iv at e. Nor do th e ci rcu m st an ces le n d t h e ms el ve s to su ch a co nc lu si on

. In st ead , t he ev id en ce in th is cas e sh owe d th e c on tra ry : W he n ex pr es sl y di rect ed by

a la w en fo rcem en t of

fic er to rem ai n in th e car, Nowak go t ou t of th e car, ran fro m th e

sc en e, an d le ft hi s be lo ng in gs be hi nd

. The o b je c ti ve fact s av ai la bl e to th e of fic ers

su pp or t t he fin di ng th at Nowak ab an do ne d h is ba ck pa ck

.

W he th er p r o p e r t y i s di sc ard ed in a pu bl ic
, pr iv at e, or se m i-p riv at e pl ace is a fact or in co ns id eri ng whe th er th e pr o p e r ty ha s be en ab an do ne d, bu t it is no t di sp os it iv e. See Katz v. Uni te d St at es , 38 9 U.S. 34 7, 35 1– 52 (1 96 7) (“ W ha t a pe rs on kn owi ng ly ex po se s to th e pu bl ic
, ev en in hi s own ho m e or of fic e, is no t a su bjec t of
Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n.

. . . Bu t wha t he se ek s to pr es erv e as pr iv at e, ev en in

an area acce ss ib le to th e pu bl i c , may be co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed ” (ci ta ti on s

om it te d) ). Bas ed on t h e e v i de nc e pr es en te d, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

c o nc lu di ng th at Nowak ab an do ne d hi s ba ck pa ck an d rel in qu is he d an y reas on ab l e

ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in i t. 2

The de ci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Bec au se we ha ve co nc lu de d th at Nowak ab an do ne d th e ba ck pa ck
, we need not 2 ad dr es s wh et he r Mad se n’s co ns en t t o s earc h t he car ex te nd ed to th e b ack pa ck

.
-5

-