## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1173 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E DD IE L AM AR C ARLI S LE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on.

No . 1:08- CR-22

—Wi ll iam C. L ee, Judge .
A RGUED J UNE 1, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2010

Befo re B AUER, F LA UM a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudge . O n Fe b ru ar y 1 8, 20 08 , E d d ie Lam arCarl i sl e was ar re ste d at the hom e o fM ichael Cha pm andur i nga dr ugswee p. Two o ffi ce r s ca ug ht C a r l i s l e f l e e i n gfr o m th e b a c ko fth e h o u s e wh i l e t wo ot h er offic er s e n te re d th e fro n t d oo r of th e h ou se . C ar lisle w a s carrying a closed backp ack w ith him

. Th e officers se ar c h ed th e b a c k p ac k a n d fou n d m ar ij u an a, c ra c k, a scal e, a spatul a, an d packa gi ng m ate ri al s. Carl i sl e was2 N o. 10

- 1173 charg ed w i th o ne co unt ofkno w i ngl y pos ses si ng with i ntent to dist rib u te fi ve gr am s o r m or e but l ess than fi fty gr am s o fa m i xture con ta in i ng a detect ibl e a m ount o f coca i ne bas e a nd o ne co unt ofp ossess i ng with i ntent to di st r ibut e m ar ij ua na . Ca r l i sl e m o ve d t o s uppr es s th e evi dence f ound in the b ag , a rguingthatthe sea rch viol ated his Fourth A m en d m en t ri gh ts. T he district cou rt h eld a su p p re ss ion h ea rin g. A t th e he ar in g , C a r lisle cl ai m ed th atthe b ac k pac kwas no t hi s an d tha t so m eo ne i n th e h o us e a s k e d h i m t o c a r r y the b a gt o the g a r a ge. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d th e mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s o n the gr ound that C ar li sl e di d not hav e s tandi ng to r ai se a Four th A m endm ent chal l enge to the sea rch of th e bag because he di d not hav e a pri vacyi nter esti n the bag. Carl i sl e ple aded guil ty but re ser ved hi s ri ght to appeal the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fhi s m oti on t o supp re ss. B ec au se w e a gr ee w ith th e d ist ric t c o u r t t h at C ar lisle di d no t ha ve a r ea so nable ex p ec ta ti o n o fpr i va cyi n the b a g, w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und The se ri es ofev ents that l ed up to the ar re st of defen dan t- appe l l an t Eddi e LamarCa r l i sl e beg ani n the m idd le ofth e a ft ernoo n of Febru ary 18, 2008 , w he n Sergea nt Thom as St ra usbor ger ofthe Fo rtW ayne Pol i ce D ep artm en t exe cu ted a search w arran t several d oors dow n f ro m M i chaelChapm an’ s r esi dence. W hi l e there , St ra usbor ger ob served peo ple co m i ng and go i ng fro m Ch apm an’ s r esi dence i n a m anner that he co nsi dered i ndi ca ti ve o fa dr ugope r at i o n. Cons i der i ngthe s us pi ci o usN o. 10

- 1173 3 tr affic p at te rn an d se ve ra l tip s h is offic e h ad p re vi o u sly re cei ved, S tr ausbo rg erco ntacte d D ete cti ve A nd re w I r i c k, w h o w o r k e d w i t h th e a g e n c y th a tmo n i t o r s h o me detenti on deta i nees, and to l d I ri ck about hi s s uspici ons. That eve ni ng, Offi cer s M i chaelS m othe rm on, M at th ew S ny de r, And r e w I r i c k, a nd J e ffHa l s e y we ntt o Ch a pm an’ s h o us e t o p e r f o r m a n un a nn o un c e d v i s i tt o s e a r ch f ordrugs. Chapm an was a ho m e dete nt ion detai nee w ho vo l untari l y s ubm i tte d t o w ea ri ng a tr acking devi ce o n h i s an k l e an d c o nsent ed to a nno unc ed an d una nno unc ed se ar ch es o f hi s ho m e as par t o f th e ho m e det en t i o n p r o g r a m. Be c a us e o fC h a p ma n ’ s s t a t u s a s a h o me d e t a i n e e , th e o ffi c e r s d i d n o tn e e d a s e a r c h wa r r a n t
. At the ho us e , S mothe r mona nd S ny de r we ntt o the b ack w hi l e I ri ck and Hals ey re m ai ned i n the f ro nt. A l though all of th e officers w ere in rad io con tact, th e record does no tp r e c i s e l y r e fl e c th o w the t i mel i ne o fwh a to ccur r ed i n fr o nto fthe ho us e l i ne s up wi ththe t i m el i ne ofev ents behi n d t he house

. U pon ar ri vi ng, I ri ck knock ed on the fro nt doorand i de n ti fi ed hi m sel fas a p o l i c e o ffice r. Irick sa w a w om an p ee k ou t a n d be gin to pl aywi ththe l o ck

. Offi ce r H alsey l o o k ed th r o ug h a si de w i nd ow and sa w a m an, a w om an , and a younge r chi l d m ovi ng ar ound the l i vi ng r oo m . I ri ck and H al sey he ar d g l as s br ea k i ngi ns ide the ho us e an d the n the w om an ope ne d the front d oor. A t s om e poi nt be tw een w h en the offi cer s i n f ro nt fi rs t k no ck ed an d w hen the o ffi ce r s g aine d a cc es s to the h o u s e th r o u g h th e f r o n t d o o r, C a r l i s l e e x i t e d th r o ug h t he b a c k d o o r o f th e h o u s e . P r i o r t o C a r l i s l e e x i t i ng t he4 N o. 10

- 1173 ho us e, Offi ce r S m o th er m on sa w so m eo ne l o o ko uto fthe verticalb l i nds o n the s i de o fthe ho us e. The n, a cc o r di ng to Offi ce r S m oth er m o n, Ca r l i sl e ex i te d the r ea r o fthe ho us e i n a ne r vo us manne r, pa us ed f o r a s ec o nd g l an ci ng ar o und, a nd b eg ant o r un t o war d the a l l ey way b eh i nd th e g a r a g e . C a r l i s l e wa s ca r r y i n ga b a c k p a c kw i th h i m. Whe n C a r l i s l e s t a r t e d t o r u n, O ffi c e r S mo th e r mo n c a me o uto fh i s h i di ngp o s i t i o n a nd o r de r e d C a rl i s l e t o s t o p. Of ficers S m o th er m o n a nd S ny derdi d no t k no w w ho Car l i sl e was a nd thoughthe may be Cha pm ant r y i ng to esca pe. S m othe rm on dre w hi s t ase r an d o rder ed C ar lisle to t h e g ro u n d . Sn yd er d re w h is gu n . C ar lisle pu tthe b a gdo wn a nd l a i d d o wn o n the g r o un d. Sm othe rm on handcuffed Carl i sle. The o ffi cer s s ai d that they hand cuffed Carl i sl e because he was at tem pti ng to fl ee a nd b ec au se th ey fea r ed f o r o ffi ce r s afety due t o the n a t ur e o fth e s e a r c h o fth e h o u s e . A r o u n d th e s a me t i me th atthe o ffi ce r s i n fr o ntg aine d a cc es s to th e h ous e, o ne o fthe t wo o ffi ce r s i n the b ac ko fthe ho us e r adi o ed th e f ro nt dooro ffi cer s t o tel l them thattheyapp re h en ded an i nd i vi du alat tem pti ng to fl ee. I ns i de th e ho us e, the o ffi ce r s co nduc ted a co ns en t se a r c h

. T h e o ffi c e r s s e c u r e d th e a d u l t s i n th e d i ni ng r o o m a r ea a nd per f o r m ed a pr o te ct i ve s wee p o fthe hom e . Be c a us e i twa s c o l d o ut s i de , the o ffi c e r s to ok Carli sl e i nsi de. The o ffi cer s a l so gr abbed the bac kpack and bro ught i t i nto the house. I nsi de the hom e, Offi cer Snyderas ked Carl i sl e f ori denti fi cati on wh i l e O fficer Sm otherm on patt ed hi m dow n to deter m i ne wh ether he had any w eapons, w hi ch he di d not. Offi cerS nyder al so se ar ched the b ag that Carl i sl e had be en car ry i ng.N o. 10

- 1173 5 Of fi ce r S ny dert es ti fi ed th athe c o ul d no t det er m i ne the c on te n ts o fth e b ag w ith ou t o p en in g it. T h er e is n o t es timo n y th a tO ffi c e r S n y d e r a t te mpt e d t o d o a p a t
- d o wn o fthe b agt o de te r m i ne i fi t conta i ne d wea po ns wi th o ut openi ng i t. W hen Offi cerS nyder op ened the back pack he sa w a c lea r pla sti c ba g c ontaini ng a gr een l eafy s ubstan ce an d an off- w hite su bsta nc e in the sh ap e of a co o k i e, wh ich tu r ne d o utt o b e cr ac k

. Ba se d o n h i s ex perience, Offi cerS nyder re cogni zed the gr een l eafy s ubstan ce as m arij ua na . H e d id n ot recogn ize t he off

whi te su bs ta nc e. Of fi ce r S ny der al so sa w a sc al e wi tha p ow d er res id u e o n it, a sp at u la, an d p ac ka gin g m at er ia ls in th e b a g. A t t h at tim e, O ffice r Sn yd er rea d C ar lisle hi s M i r anda righ ts . A c c or d in g t o O ffice r Sn yd er , C ar lisle d en ied kn ow led ge of th e c on te n t s o f th e b ag . C ar lisle did notcl ai m o r deny ownershi p ofthe bag at that ti m e. Car l i sl e m oved to s uppr es s th e ev i den ce f o und i n the b ag . A t t h e s u p p re ss ion h ea rin g, C ar lisle ga ve th e fo ll owing tes ti m ony concerni ng hi s r el ati onshi p to the b ag: Q: You w er e t aki ng the bagto the gar age ? A : Yes , sir
. Q: Goi ng to thr ow itaway? A : N o. J ust a ske d m e t o pu t i t there

. Q: They as ked y ou t o pu t i t i n ther e? A : H e, he a ske d m e. Q: W ho a sk ed y o u? A: M i ch ae l Cha pm an .6 N o. 10

- 1173 Q: Because i t wasn’tyo ur ba g, r i ght? A : N o. Q: I t was Chapm an’ s ba g? A : Yes , sir
. Q: Yo u di dn’ t k no w w ha t was i t i n? A : N o. The distr i ctc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n t o s uppr es s th e evi dence. Fi rs t, the dist ri ct c ourtf ou n d that the i ni ti al stop w as a p rop er Terryst op bas ed on r eas onabl e s usp ici on arising from Ca rli sle’s e x it ing the rear ofa house that w as bei ng se arc h ed i n connect i on with suspected drug acti vi ty. T u rning to the s ear ch ofthe back

pack, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that Car l i sl e di d not hav e st an di ngt o r ai se a F o ur th A m en dm en t cl ai m r eg ar di ng the s ear ch beca use he did n ot h ave a r eas onabl e e xpecta t i o n o fp r i v a c y i n the b a g . I n the a l t e r na t i v e , the di str i ct cour tf o un d tha te v e n i fCa r l i s l e di d h a v e s t a nd i ng, the s ear ch w as properunder the Fo urth Am endm ent.

I I . Discussi on Car l i sl e appe al s th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ng s th atthe i ni ti alst op w as re aso nabl e a nd thatthe w ar ra ntl ess s e a r c h o fthe ba c k pa c kdi d no tv i o l a t e h i s F o ur th Am e nd

m ent r i ghts. W hen r evi ew i ng a dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s deni alo f a m o ti o n to s uppr es s, we r ev i ew f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o ns for cle ar err or an d l e g a l q u es tio n s d e n ov o. U nited Sta tes v. E ll is , 4 99 F
. 3d 68 6, 6 88 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. De te r m i na ti o ns of p ro b a b l e c au se an d rea so n ab le s u sp icio n are n or m allyN o. 10

- 1173 7 mi xe d que s t i o ns o ff a c t and l a w, b utwh e n “ wha th a pp en ed ?” i s no t a t i ssue, the ult i m ate r eso l uti on o f w hetherpro bable cause o r re aso nabl e s uspici on e xi ste d i s a questi on o fl aw wh i ch w e r evi ew de nov o. U nited St at e s v. Bur ns i de, 588 F.3d 511 , 516 (7th C ir. 2009).

A . The I nit i al Sto p C arli sle conte nd s th a t t h e officers did not h ave su fficie n t re as on ab le s u sp icio n to st op a n d d et ain h im an d th er efo r e, th i s st o p vi o l at ed hi s F o ur th A m en dm en t ri ghts. I fthe sto p w as im p ro per, the f rui ts ofthe sto p w ou ld al so be i m properand the conte nts o fthe bag s ho ul d h a v e b e e n e xc l ud e d. Pol i ce o ffi cer s m ay conduct a bri efi nvest i gat or y s top ofa su sp ec t i ftheyhave r eas onabl e s uspici on ba sed o n ar ti cul abl e f acts t h at a cri m e i s about to be o r has be en c om m itt ed

. U nited Sta tes v. Wim bush , 33 7 F
. 3d 947, 94 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( ci ti ng Ter ry v. O hio , 392 U
. S. 1, 30 (1968)). The suspi ci ous c onduct m ay be am bi guous and susceptibl e t o an i nnocent ex p lan ati on, but the o ffi cer s m ay d et ain th e in d ivid u al t o re so lve su c h am b igu ity
. Il li nois v. War dl ow , 528 U .S. 11 9, 12 5-2 6 (2 00 0). O ffice rs m ay rely o n the i r e xpe r ience i n e va l ua tingthe s i g ni fi ca nc e o fthe su sp ec t’s co n d u c t. U nite d State s v . B askin , 40 1 F
. 3d 788, 79 1 ( 7t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 )
. D u r i n gth e s t o p , th e o ffi c e r ma y c o ndu ct a p at -d ow n sea rch to deter m i ne wh etherthe perso n is c ar ry in g a w ea p on if th e o f f i c er h as an art icu lab le su sp icio n th at th e su b j ec t is ar m ed a n d d an ge ro u s. Terry, 39 2 U. S. a t 24
. The pr o te ct i ve s ea r chpe r m i tt ed wi th o ut8 N o. 10

- 1173

a warr ant duri ng a Terryst op is “li m i ted to thatwh i ch i s n e c e s s a r y f o r th e d i s c o v e r y o f we a p o n s wh i c h mig ht be use d to harm th e offi cero r othe rs nearby. ” M innes ota v. D i cke rs on , 50 8 U.S
. 36 6, 37 3 ( 1993 ). T h e o ffi cer s m ay al so detai n a ba g or l uggag e fro m a suspect w hen they ha ve r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n t o b el i ev e th atthe b agc o nt a i n s c on tr ab an d or ev id en c e o f a c rim e. U ni t e d S t a tes v. Pl ac e , 4 62 U .S. 69 6, 70 8-0 9 (1 98 3); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wa rd, 144 F.3d 102 4, 1030 -31 (1998). W e fi nd thatthe offi cer s had r eas onabl e s uspici on t o bel i eve thatcr i m i nal act i vi ty w as occur ri ng and that Car l i sl e was ar m ed an d dan g er o us , th er eb y m ak i ng the i ni ti als to p pr o per . O ff i ce r S m o th er m o n t es ti fi ed atthe supp re ssi on hea ri ng tha t he sto pp ed Carl i sl e be cause: W e, um , were ther e t o, um , se ar ch the hom e ba sed onthe t i p i nf o r mat i o n tha tthe r e ma y b e n a rco ti cs th atc o ul d b e g o i ngo n, a nd th ey w o ul d b e l o o k i ng out the blinds and, and, um , thi s, um , i nd i vi du al su dden l y b ur st i ngo utthe r ea r o fthe ho m e at te m pting to fl ee , I felt it prude ntt o s to p a nd s ee whathe m i ght b e doi ng. That s eem ed suspi ci ous t o m e. I n r es po ns e to a f o l l o w-u p que st i on reg ar di ngwhy he f ear e d fo r o ffi c e r s a f e t y , S mothe r mons t a t e d, “ Ih a d a he i g ht en ed se ns e o fa w aren es s ba se d o n the pe ek i ngo ut of th e bl i nds

. The r ea so n th at we wer e th er e to start w i th, a n d thathe, he di d i t i n an urg ent m anner, tr y t o fl e e the r e s i de nc e . ” Whe n a s k e d w hy th e o ffi c e r s h a nd

c uff e d C a r l i s l e o nc e h e h a d s t o pp e d, Offi c e r S ny der r e s po nd e d:N o. 10

- 1173 9 W e were ther e t o do a n arcoti cs invest i gat i on due to ti ps w e have re cei ved f ro m the For t W ayne C ity vic e n ar c ot ics , an d , um , ba sic ally w h en you are in a si t ua t i o n l i k e th a twi th n a r c o t i c s , u m, u s ua l l y we a po ns a r e i nv o l v e d mo r e o ft e n tha n not, s o we h a nd

c u ffed for offic er sa fet y a n d es c or t t h em ba c k in sid e. Both offi cer s tes ti fi ed that they did notat tem pt to i denti fy Car l i sl e unti l theywere backi nsi de the house. The go ver nm ent r el i es on the f ol l owing factors to j us ti fy the pr o pr i ety o fthe s to p: ( 1) the na tu r e o fthe o ffi ce r s’ v i si t to the house; (2) the pe r so n pe ek i ngo ut f ro m the bl i nd s pri orto Carl i sl e e x itin g the house ; ( 3) C a r l i s l e ’ s a t t e mptt o l e a v e th e h o u s e wh i l e a d r ug sea rc h wa s o c c ur r i ng ; a nd ( 4 ) the n e r v o us ma nn e r that Carl i sl e l eft the house , descr ibed by O ffi cerS m othe rm on as “t ar g etg l an ci ng ” an d the n r unni ng . The se f ac to r s are all re lev an t t o o u r c on sid er at ion . W e h av e p re vio u sly he l d tha t the de t e nt i o n o f a n i nd i v i du a l a t t e mpt i ng to enter an ar ea that w as curr entl y secur ed f or the purpos e of a n ar c ot ics sw ee p w a s p ro p er . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Je nni ngs , 54 4 F
. 3d 815, 81 8- 19 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. I n Je nni ngs , we re asone d, “i t was r eas onabl e f orthe office rs to ‘ exer ci se unqu es ti one d co m m an d o fthe s i tu at i o n’ b y de ta i ni ng J enni ng s l o nge no ug h t o ens ur e tha t he w as unar m ed an d uninvo l ved i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty. ” Id. Add it i o na l l y , the S upr eme Co ur t ha s he l d tha t ev as i ve b eh av i o r a nd fl ight are su ggestive of w ron g d oing an d can be factors consi dered i n a c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on o fwh etheran offi cerhad re aso nabl e s uspici on t o execute a Terrys t o p. Il l i noi s v. War dl ow , 52 8 U.S
. 1 19 , 1 25- 26 ( 2006 )
. These10 N o. 10

- 1173

case s, r ead to gether, m ak e i t unquesti onabl e that a n in d ivid u al flee in g a n are a w h er e a n ar c ot ics s w e e p is taking p lace gives ris e to reasona ble susp ici on to j us tify a Terrys t o p. Car l i sl e do es no t r es t hi s ar g um en t so l el y o n the c o ntenti on that the i nitialst op w as i m proper, but ra ther ar gues that the o ffi cer s’ co nti nuati on o f t h e sto p w as i m propero nce Car l i sl e co m pli ed w i th th e offi cer s’ o rder to getdow n on t h e gro und

. To s up portthi s a rgum ent, Carl i sl e i nter prets the offi cer s’ te sti m ony to m ean that the o nl y purpose o fthe sto p w as to i nsure that he was not Ch apm an atte m pti ng to es cape. A s s uch, he c l ai m s that the o ffi cer s s houl d have a ske d fo r nam e a nd i denti fi cat i o n a n d l e th i m g o u p o n l e a r n i n gth a th e w a s n o tC h a pm an . Th e g ov er n m en t c as ts t h e re as on ab le s u sp icio n in broad er term s. T he govern m en t sug gests that the offi cers h a d a r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n th a ts o m e o n e i n th e h o me want ed to hi de co nt r ab an d a nd tha t an y o ne l ea vi ng sh ou ld at l eas t be st opped and as ked ab out w hat was happ eni ng. The go ver nm ent’ s f or m ula ti on o fthe re aso nabl e su spi ci o n i s co ns i st en t wi th the t o ta l i tyo fthe evi dence

— som eone gl an ci ng o ut the w i nd ow bl i nd s, C ar lisle ex itin g fro m th e re ar of t h e h ou se w h ile o ffi c e r s we r e kn o c k i n ga tth e fr o n t, C a r l i s l e c a r r y i n gt he b a c k p a c k, C a r l i s l e l o o k i n gfr o m s i d e t o s i d e o n c e o u t s i de th e d oo r , a n d C ar lisle ru n n in g t ow ar d s t h e o n ly p os sib le exi t fro m the re ar . U nd erthes e ci rcum sta nces, i t was r e a s on ab le for th e o ffice rs to st op C ar lisle an d d et ain h im t o a s k q u e s t i o n s t o d e t e r mi n e wh y h e wa s l e a v i ng t he h ou se w i th a back pack duri ng a drug sweep. W h ile hand cuffi ng i s no t a n or m alp ar t ofa Terryst op, i t doe s no tN o. 10

- 1173 11 autom ati cal l y turn a Terryst op i nto an unl aw ful ar re st. U nite d State s v. Sm it h , 3 F
. 3d 10 88 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. Gi ve n the to ta lity of th e c irc u m st an c es , th e o ffice rs ’ ac tio n s in de t a i ningCa r l i s l e di d n o tv i o l a t e h i s F o ur th Am e ndm ent r i ghts.

B. The Sear ch oft he Bag Carl i sl e next chal l en ge s the se ar ch ofthe bag. A fter se cur ing C ar l i sl e an d b r i ng i nghi m a nd the b agi nt o the hom e, Offi cer S n yd ero pened the bac kpack and sear ched i t. Ca r l i sl e ch al l en g es th i s as a war r an tl es s se ar cha nd ar gues that the evid en ce insi de the bag shoul d have b ee n su p p re ss ed . Th e d ist r i c t c ou rtrejec te d th is c laim b ec au se it fou n d t h a t C ar lisle d id n ot h av e a rea so n ab le expectat i on o fpri vacyi n the conte nts o fthe bag. W e a gr ee. The Suprem e Cour t has co nsi sten tly h el d that “ Four th Am e n d me n tr i g ht s a r e p e r s o n a l r i g h t s w h i c h, l i k e s o me othe r c on st i tuti onalr i ghts, m ay not be v i car i ousl y a sse rted. ” R aka s v. Il li nois , 4 3 9 U. S
. 1 2 8 , 1 3 4 ( 1 9 7 8 )
. Under Rakas , the Court hel d that the “s tandi ng” i ssue und er the F o ur th Am e nd men ts ho ul d b e a ddr e s s e d thr o ug h the s ubstanti ve Four th A m end m ent quest i on o fwh ether the per son chal l engi ng the se ar ch “had a l egi ti m ate ex pec ta ti o n o fpr i va cyi n the pr emi se s he was us i ng and ther ef or e co uld cl ai m the prot ec tio n of the F ourth A m endm ent with re spect to a g ove rnm entali nvasi on oftho se prem i ses , ev en t h ou gh hi s ‘ i nter est ’ i n thos e prem i ses m i ght no t have be en a re cogni zed pro perty i nt er es t atc o m m o n l aw . ” 43 9 U. S
. a t 14 3. W he n c o nsi deri ng w hetheran ind i vi du alhas a l egi ti m ate expecta
-12 N o. 10

- 1173 ti o n o fpr i va cy, a c o ur t m us t co ns i der : ( 1) whethe r the in d i vi du al, by hi s co nd uct, has exhibi ted an a ctual( subj ec tiv e) e x p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y; an d (2) w h et h er th e in d ivi du al ’ s s ubj ecti ve expectat i on o f p ri vacyi s o ne that soc i etyi s pre pared to r eco gni ze as re aso nabl e. Sm it h v
. M aryl and , 4 42 U
. S. 73 5 ( 1979 ) ( ci ti ng Ka tz v. U nited Sta tes , 38 9 U. S
. 3 47( 19 67 ) )
. I n th i s ca se , i t i s th e fi r stpr o ng, the subj ecti ve expectat i on o fpri vacy, thati s at i ssue. W hether an i nd i vi du alhas ex hibi ted a subj ecti ve expectat i on o f pr ivacyi s a hi ghl y f act- speci fi c i nquir y. S eve ra l ke y ca se s sh ed l i g hton w her e co ur ts ha ve dr awn the l i ne f orwh en an i nd i vi du alhas a r eas onabl e e xpe c ta ti on o f pr i va cy, a nd c an th er efo r e ch al l en g e th e se ar ch, a nd w hen he doe s no t. B efore w e exa m ine th e case law in th is area, i t is im p ortan t to sep arate c a s e s of aba nd onm en t from cases w he re i t i s ambi g uo us a t the t ime o fthe s ea r chwhethe r the i ndi vi dual h ad a su bj ec ti ve e xpe ct at i o n o fpr i va cyi n the sea rched a re a. Both the go ver nm ent a nd Carl i sl e ci te se ve r alc as es wher e the de f en dan t ab an do ne d the p ro p er ty atth e t im e o f th e s ea rc h

. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. R ush , 890 F.2d 45 (7t h C ir. 19 89 ); U n it ed States v. Sm it h , 3 F .3d 10 88 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ); B o nd v. U nited Sta tes , 77F. 3d 10 09 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6)
. I n the se thr ee c as es c i te d b y the pa r t i e s , th e d e f e n d a n t s o p e n l y d e n i e d o wn e r s h i p o ft he p r o p e r t y a tth e t i me o fthe s e a r c h

. I n a l l th r e e c a s e s we f ound that the defendant’s di savo w alo fo w ners h ip was s uff i c i e ntt o c o ns t i t ut e ab a nd o nme nt
. “ Aba nd o ne d p r o per t y i s n ot su b j ec t t o Fo u rt h A m en d m en t p ro te c tio n .” U nite d State s v. P it ts , 3 22 F
. 3d 44 9 ( 7th C ir
. 2 00 3) ( ci ting A bel v. U nited Sta tes , 362 U .S. 21 7 (1 96 0))
. H ow ev er , th isN o. 10

- 1173 13

case i s no t a s cl earcut as an aba n d on m en t case. Offi cer S ny dert es ti fi ed th atCa r l i sl e di d no t cl ai m nor den y own er shi p ofthe bag at t he ti m e o fthe sea rch. There f or e, th e ab a n d o n me n tl i n e o fc a s e s a r e i n a p pl i c a b l e a n d we m ust a n sw era m or e nuanced questi on: under wh at c irc u m st an c es d oe s a d efe n d an t h av e a su b j ec tiv e p riva c y in te re st in a p iec e o f p ro p er t y w h e n ow n er sh ip i s ambi g uo us a t th e ti m e o fthe s ea r ch ? T w o years after Rakas i nstr ucted cour ts to f ocus on w hetherthe defe nd ant had a l egitim ate pri vacyi nter est i n the s ea r ch ed p rop erty to r es o l ve que st i o ns o fs ta ndi ng und erthe Four th A m endm ent, the Suprem e Cour t i ssued tw o op in ion s o n th e s am e d ay cla r i fy i n g t h e is su e. In Rawlings v. Ke nt uc ky, 4 4 8 U
. S
. 9 8 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , th e S u p r e me Court hel d that the d efe n dant did nothave a l egi ti m ate expectat i on o f pri vacyi n hi s g i rl f ri end’s pu rs e s uch that he c o ul d c ha l l en g e a se ar cho fthe pur se tha t l ed to the d i s c o v e r y o fi l l e g a l d r u g s b e l o n g i n gt o h i m. A tth e t i me o fthe s ea r ch, Ra wl i ng s was s i tt i ngne xtt o hi s g i r l f r i en d on th e c ou c h w ith th e p u rs e b et w e e n th em . Rawli ngs , 44 8 U. S
. a t 10 0-01. Ra wl i ng s’ s g i r l f r i en d ha d he r ha nd on t h e p u rs e. Id. On e o ffi c e r o r de r e d R a wl i ng s t o s t a nd

. Id. The o thero ffi cero rder ed Raw l i ngs’ s g i rl f ri end to empty the c o nt en ts o fher pur se , whi chl ed to the d i sc ov er y of t h e d ru gs . Id. Atthe s up pr e s s i o n he a r i ng, Raw l i ngs a nsw er ed “n o” to the questi ons: “Di d you feel th atVa nne ss a [ si c] Co x’ s pur se woul d be f r ee fr o m the i nt r us i o n o f th e o ffi ce r s as y o u sa t th er e? W he n y o u put the pi l l s i n herp u rse, di d you feelthattheywould be f re e fro m go ver nm entali ntrusion ?” Id. a t 10 4. I n fi ndi ng that Raw l i ngs di d not m eethi s bur d en o fpro vi ng tha t14 N o. 10

- 1173 he ha d a l eg i ti m at e pr i vacy i nt er es t i n the pur se , the Co ur tr e a s o ne d, A t the tim e pe titi one r du m p ed thou san d s o f d oll ars w or th o fdrugs i nto Cox’s pu rs e, he ha d known her f oro nl y afew days. A ccor ding to Cox’s uncon te st ed tes ti m ony, peti ti oner had ne ver sought orrec ei ved acces s t o her pu rs e pr ior to that sudd en bai l m ent. N or di d peti ti onerhave any ri ght t o excl ud e o ther p er sons fro m Cox’ s purse . I n f act, Cox te sti fi ed that Bo b S ta l l i o ns , a l o ng ti m e acq ua i nt an ce a nd fr eque nt com p an ion o fCox’ s, had fre e a cces s t o her pu rs e o n the v er y m or ni ng o fthe ar re st and had rum m aged th r o ug h i ts c o nt en ts i n s ea r cho fa ha i rbr us h. Id. a t 10 5 ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. I n Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Salvucci, 44 8 U .S. 83 ( 1980 ) , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that th e defen dan ts di d no t ha ve a n a ut o m at i c l eg i ti m at e ex p ecta tion of p rivac y i n th e hom e of d efend an t-Za cku lar’ s m oth er. Th e Sup rem e C ou rt d id not reac h an y d eterm i nati on base d o n the f acts o fse ar ch, but ra ther r emande d f o r a ne w suppr es si o n hear i ngb ec au se “ th e re sp ond ents re l i ed on a utom ati c st anding and did not att em pt to est abl i sh that they had a l egi ti m ate ex p ec tat i o n o fp r i v a c y i n th e a r e a s o fZ a c k u l a r ’ s mo th e r ’ s h o me w here the goo ds w er e sei zed. ” Id. at95
. W hat Salvucci adds t o o ur a na l y si s i s a cl ea r s ta te m en t f r o m the Suprem e Cour t th at the i nd i vi du alse eki ng suppress i on o fthe e v i de nc e b e a r s a b ur de n t o p r o ve that he h a d a l egi ti m ate expecta ti on o fpri vacyin the se ar ched proper ty. S ev er aly ea r s l at er, i n U nited Sta tes v. P eters , 791 F
. 2d 1270 (7t h C ir. 1 98 6) (o ve rru led on oth er gro u n d s), ou r c irc u itN o. 10

- 1173 15 ha d o cc as i o n t o a ddr es s t he iss ue o fwhena de f en dan t h as a subj ecti ve pri vacyi nter esti n a pi ece ofpro perty
. The defe nd ant, Pete rs , co ntest ed the adm i ssi on o f evid en ce th at cam e from the sea rch of his co-con sp irator’ s car. Peters occ asiona ll y use d the ca r, had keys to t h e car, sto re d the ca r i n hi s par ents’ d riv ew ay , and pai d fo r r epa i r s to the c ar. I n P eters , we i den ti fi ed th e f o l l o wi ng f acto r s a s k e y t o de t e r mi ningwh e the r a n i nd i v i du a l h as a le git im at e p riv ac y in te re stin a giv en p iec e o f p ro p er ty : (1) w he th er the d efend an t h ad a p ossess ory [or ow ne rshi p] i nter es t in the thi ng se i zed orthe pla ce s e a r c he d, ( 2 ) wh e the r h e h a d the r i g htt o e xc l ud e o the r s fr o m t ha tp l a c e , ( 3 ) wh e the r h e e xh ib i t ed a subj ecti ve ex p ectati on that i t would r em ai n f re e fro m gov er nm entali nvasi on, ( 4) wh etherhe t oo k no rm al preca uti ons to m ai ntai n hi s pri vacy, and ( 5) w hether he was l egi ti m ate l y o n the prem i ses . 79 1 F
. 2d at1 28 1. Ba se d on th o se f ac to r s, we f o und th at P et er s d id n ot h av e a legit im at e e x p ec ta tio n of p rivacyi n the carbec ause: ( 1) Pet ers was noti n posse ssi on of the c a r a t th e tim e of th e search nor d id h e assert l eg al ow ner sh i p o fthe c ar ; ( 2) Pe te r s’ s te st i m o ny a t th e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n gd i d n o ti n d i c a t e th a th e h a d the rig h t t o e x c lu d e o th er s fro m u sin g t h e c ar (h e c ou ld on ly use the car w i th the o w ner’ s per m i ssi on, and two or th re e otherpeopl e r egul ar l y use d the ca r) ; ( 3) none of P et er s’s st at em en ts su gg es te d th at h e b elie ve d h e c ou ld l e a v e a ny thing i n the c a r a nd ha v e i t re m ai n unt o uc he d; ( 4) nothi ng i n the re cor d i nd i cate d that Pe ter s t oo k an y pr ecaut i o ns t o a ss ur e pr i va cyi n the c ar ; a nd16 N o. 10

- 1173 ( 5) Pete rs was not i n or n ea r the c arwh en the se ar ch o c c ur r e d. Re ce nt l y, w e a d dr es se d thi s i ss ue a g ain i n U nited Sta tes v. Am ar al

- Est r ada , 5 09 F
. 3d 82 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. I n A m aralEst r ada , the offi cer s s aw the defe nd ant a nd ano ther m ale d r i vi ngthe c ara t i ss ue . 5 09 F
. 3d at8 22
. The de f en dant and passenge r parke d the car an d w al ked away f r om it. Id. a t 8 2 3
. S e v e r a l b l o c k s a wa y, o n e o ft he offic er s s to p p ed th e d efe n d an t a n d th e p as se n ge r. Id. A ccor ding to the o ffi cer ’ s te stim ony, the defe nd ant deni ed any know l edge o fthe car, o w ners hi p ofthe car, o r eve r h av i n g d riv en th e c ar . Id. A m ar al

- Estra da tes ti fi ed that he ne ve r de ni ed d riv i ngthe c ar, he o nl y de ni ed o wni ng th e c ar . Id. H e t est i fi ed that So sa- Verderj a, the own ero f th e c ar , l en t h im th e c ar ab ou t a w e e k p rior
. Id. A m ar alEstra da also testi fi ed that So sa- Verderj a t ol d him to dri ve to a s peci fi c W al gr eens and go i nsi de, and that while he was i ns i de th e st o r e, s o m eo ne woul d c o m e an d p u t s om et h in g in th e b ac ks ea t o f th e c ar . Id. A m ar alEst r ada d id as he was t o l d a nd whe n h e ca m e o uto fthe W alg re en s t h er e w as a b lac k d u ffle b ag i n t h e ba c k. Id. T h e o ffice r to ok A m ar al-E st ra d a b ac k t o t h e c ar . Id. The d u ffle ba g w as st ill in t h e b ac k. Id. Amar a l

- Es t r a da sti l l deni ed a c onnecti on with the caro r the duf fl e ba g. Id. T h e o ffice r u se d th e k ey s o b ta i n e d from A m ar alE st ra d a t o op en th e c ar an d se ar c h th e b ag . Id. a t 82 4. The b ag co n ta in ed a b o u t $ 25 4,9 47 .00
. Id. W e f ound that A m ar a l

- Es t r a da f a i l e d t o ma ni f e s ta nya c t ua l o r s ubj ecti ve expectat i on o fpri vacyin t h e car because , bas ed o n h i s o wn te st i m o ny, he e xpe cte d o th er s to e nt erthe c ar to lea v e or re m ov e it em s. Id. a t8 2 7

- 2 8
. Al th o u g h weN o. 10

- 1173 17 d i d n o td e c i d e th i s c a s e o n ab a n d o n me n tg r o u n d s , we al so r el i ed o n the f ac t th atAm ar al

- Est r ada t o l d the officers he d id n ot know anyt hin g abou t the car. N on e o f th e c as es cit ed by th e p ar tie s a re fa c t u a l ly iden ti ca l t o the c as e atha nd, b utwhenr ea d t o g ethe r, th ey p rov id e suffi cient guid an ce to con side r Ca rli sle’s cl ai m withi n the P eters ’ s fra m ew or k. A s no ted abo ve, P eters poi nts the Court ’ s a tte nti on t o five ke y f acto rs : (1 ) whethe r the de f en dan t ha d a po ss es so r y [ o r o w ne rs hi p] i nt e r e s ti n the things e i z e d o r the p l a c e s e a r c he d; ( 2) the ri ght to excl ud e othe rs f ro m that pla ce; ( 3) ex h ibi ted a subj ecti ve expectat i on that i t would r em ai n f re e f r o m g o ve r nm en ta l i nv as i o n; ( 4) t o o k no r m alpr ec au ti o ns to mai nt ain h i s pr i va cy ; a nd ( 5) w as l eg i ti m at el y o n the p re m ise s. T h e g ov er n m en t a rg u es th at, bec au se C ar l i s le den i ed o wner sh i p o fthe b ag, de ni ed kno wl edg e o fthe co nt en ts , iden ti fi ed th e o wnero fthe b aga s so m eo ne el se, a n d described onl y fl eet i ng co ntact w i th the bag in m ov in g it a t t h e o w n er ’ s d ire c tio n, he ca n n ot p os sib ly m ee t th e fi ve f ac to r s l ai d o uti n P eters
. W hile w e ultim a t ely agree w ith th e govern m en t’s posi ti on, thi s c as e i s cl ose r to the l i ne than i t a pp ear s a t fi rs t glance

. A l though Car l i sl e di scl ai m ed own er shi p of th e b ag , th er e is n o d isp u te th at C ar lisle w as legit im ate l y in posse ssi on o fthe proper ty. Thi s disti ngui shes Carl i sl e’ s s i tu ati on fro m thato fRaw l i ngs, wh er e Cox was i n po ss es si o n o fthe pur se a t th e ti m e o fthe s ea r ch, an d Pe te r s, who was no t ne arthe c ara t th e ti m e o fthe sea rch. Carl i sl e a l so i nd i cate d that he i ntended to m aint ain pr i va cyi n the b ag by ho l di ngo nt o i t as he18 N o. 10

- 1173 l eft the house and by ke ep in g i t cl ose d. The i ssue of ex clusivity is m urkier. From th e testim ony , it a p p ears th ata t th e ti m e he was i n po ss es si o n o f th e ba g, he ha d the r i g htt o e xc l ude a l l o th er s f rom the b age xc eptCha pm an . T h i s f a c t o r d i s t i n g u i s h e s th i s c a s e fr o m Am ar al

- E s t r ada , w here A m ar al

- Estra da expected o ther s t o tak e thi ngs f ro m and l eave thi ngs in the carwh ile h e w as entr usted w i th i t. W hat m ake s i t quest i onabl e that Car l i sl e had excl usi ve contr olis t he appel l ant’ s o w n tes ti m ony that he di d not know wh at w as i n the bag orwh o w as u sin g t h e b ag im m ed ia t e l y p rior to h is t ak in g it. T h is te st i m o ny s tr o ng l y cut s ag ains t an y c l ai m o fe xc l usi ve contro l and m ake s Car l i sl e’ s s i tuati on s i m i l arto Ra wl i ng s’s s i tu at i o n whe r e he l ac k ed co nt r o l o ve r who ha d a cc es s to the s ea r ch ed pr o per typr i o r t o the s earc h. Wh a tp u s h e s th i s c a s e fu l l y o v e r th e l i n e i s th e c o mple te l ack ofte sti m ony that Carl i sl e had any subj ecti ve expectat i on that the bagwould r em ain fr ee f ro m go vernm en tal i nv as i o n. Ca r l i sl e be ar s th e bur deno fpr o vi ng th at he ha d a su bj ective privacy interest in t h e b a g sufficie n t t o c h alle n ge th e s ea rc h

. See Salvucci, 448 U .S. 8 3. The re cor d l acks any evidence ofthi s s ubj ecti ve expectati on a nd Carl i sl e’ s t est i m ony cuts a gai nst a fi nd i ng o f any s ubj ecti ve expectat i on of pr i vacyi n the bag si nce he di sc l ai m ed o wner sh i p o r e ve n kno wl edg e o fi ts c o ntents
. There f ore, we fi nd thatCarl i sl e di d not hav e a re as on ab le e x p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y in th e b ac kp ac k s u ffici ent to al l ow hi m to chal l enge the sea rch. B ec ause C ar lisle ca n n ot v a l id ly a ss er t a Fou rt h A m en d m en t c h all enge to the s ear ch ofth e b ackpack, we do not re ach th e m erits ofw he th er the sea rch w as p rop er.N o. 10

- 1173 19 I I I . Concl usio n Forthe re aso n s se t fo rth abo ve, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fthe m oti on t o supp re ss.

8- 11- 10