The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Eastern 1 District of Missouri, adop ting the report and recommendation of the Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1011

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Otis Tugwell, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 10, 1997

Filed: September 2, 1997

___________ Befo re RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, an d WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

___________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Otis Tugwell appeals from t he district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. 1 We affirm.-2- I.

On M ay 4, 1996, Tugwell arrived in St. Louis, Missouri, from Los Angeles , California, on a Greyhound bus. An interdiction team consisting of five St. Loui s police officers, one United States customs offi cer, and a drug-sniffing dog, met the bus at the St. Louis station. Prior to the passengers’ departing the bus, the members of the team informed the passengers of their identity and their purp ose of preventing narcotics from en tering St. Louis. The team requested that the passengers submit to a sniff

search of their luggage. None of the passengers objected.
Just prior to the search, a man departing the bus, later identified a s Tugwell, told officers that he urgently needed to use the restroom; he again expressed his need to use the restroom when he handed his carry-on bag to the officers. When the drug do g alerted to the bag, the officers requested and received permission to search it. No drugs were found therein.
The officers then had the dog sniff-search the checked l uggage. Detective Linda Mopkins, one of the team members, saw Tugwell position himself against a n earby wall to ob serve the dog’s search, despite his earlier statement that he needed to use th e restr oom. As the dog alerted to a grey suitcase, Tugwell walked quickly into the bus termina l without claiming any luggage. Mopkins went into the terminal in search o f Tugwell. When the two made eye contact Tugwell exited the terminal. Mopkin s followed him outside, but could not locate him. Following the sniff-search of the checked lu ggage, which took only two or three minu tes, the passengers were advised they could collect their luggage. All luggag e
ex ceptthe grey suitcase was claimed. After approximately fifteen minutes, th e unclaimed suitcase was taken to the baggage claim area inside the bus terminal

. Greyhound personnel made two announcements to notify the owner to pick up th e suitcase. Still unclaimed, the suitcase was placed in a room with other luggage.-3-

Another sniff-search was conducted, and the dog again alerted to the p resence of drugs. A team member thereupon opened the suitcase and found several bags of cocaine. Appr oximately two hours later, Tugwell returned to the bus station an d attempted to claim the suitcase “for a fri end.” Unbeknownst to Tugwell, a Greyhound supervisor notified St. Louis police. The supervisor then informed Tugwell that h e needed iden tification in order to obtain the suitcase. Tugwell left the terminal an d returned five minutes later with identification. When police arrived, Tugwell initially identified himself as Paul Lewi s, but later admitted he was Otis Tugwell, the owner of the grey suitcase. Tugwell was arrested and indicted for possession with intent t o distribute cocaine. The district court denied T ugwell’s motion to suppress the cocaine found in the suitcase, concluding that Tugwell had abandoned any possessory interest in the suitcase and therefore had no expectation of privacy. Tugwell waived his right to a jury trial, was found guilty, and was sentenced to 312 months’ imprisonment. II. We review the district court’s determination of abandonment for cle ar error. See United States v. Segars , 31 F.3d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, “we mus t affirm the district court’s abandonment finding unless its decision is ‘unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous interpretation of applicable law, or, in light of the entire record, we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.’” United States v. Ruiz , 935 F.2d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 1991) (q uoting United States v. Meirovitz , 918 F.2d 1376, 1379 (8th Cir. 1990)) (other citations omitted). A wa rrantless search of abandoned property does not implicate the Fourt h Amendment, for any expectation of privacy in the item searched is forfeited upon its abandonment. See Segars , 31 F.3d at 658. The iss ue “is not abandonment in the strict-4-

pr operty right sense, but rather, whether the defendant in leaving the property ha s relinquish ed her reasonable expectation of privacy so that the search and seizure i s valid.” United States v. Hoey , 983 F.2d 890, 892-93 (8th Cir. 1993) (other citations omitted). Whether an abandonment has occurred is determined on the basis of th e objective facts available to the investigating officers, not on the basis of the owner’ s subjective intent. See United States v. Rem , 984 F.2d 806, 810 (7th Cir. 1993). “This determination is to be made in light of the totality of the circumstances, and tw o important factors are denial of ownership and physical relinquishment of the property.” United States v. Nordling , 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 ( 9th Cir. 1986 ). We consider only the information available to the officers at the time of the search. See Rem , 984 F.2d a t 811 (“In order to determine wheth er a pre-search abandonment has occurred, the flow of information considered stops at the moment the police officer o pened the suitcase.”).
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we cannot sa y that the district court’s finding of abandonment is clearly erroneous. Given Tugwell’s abrupt departure from the station after witnessing the dog alert to the presence of drugs in the suitcase, it was reasonabl e for the officers to assume that the grey suitcase belonged to him. Further, it was a logical conclusion that after witnessing the dog’s alert Tugwell would no t return to the station and attempt to reclaim the suitcase.
Moreover, Tugwell’s own actions were inconsistent with a continued expectat ion of privacy. Tugwell refused to claim the bag after three announcements, tantamount to a denial of ownership, and he left the suitcase unguarded and unlocked in a public place, both of which are important fa ctors in finding abandonment. See Nordling , 804 F.2d at 1469. See also Ruiz , 935 F.2d at 984-85 (disclaiming ownership of luggag e was evidence of abandonment); United States v. Wil liams , 569 F.2d 823, 826 (5th Cir. 1978) (leaving a trailer unlocked and unguarded in a parking area was evidence o f abandonment).-5-

Tu gwell’s later attempt to reclaim the suitcase does nothing to undermine thi s conclusion, for his conduct in abruptly departing the station and then returning som e two hours later was “transparently an abandonment of the tight grip of ownership and reliance solely on the f

eeble hope of re-acquisition.” Id. See also Nordling , 804 F.2d at 1470 ( rejecting defendant’s argument that his later admission of ownershi p
con stituted a reassertion of interest in the property because he left the bag unde r “circ umstances in which it was virtually certain that the bag would be opened , inspecte d and turned over to law enforcement authorities before he could possibl y attempt to re-exert physical control.”).
The judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.