IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51177

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARQUETTE DESHAWN WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-CR-260-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marquette DeShawn Wilson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment followed 

by a three-year term of supervised release. Wilson reserved his right to appeal 

the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Wilson 

contends that he has standing to contest the constitutionality of the 

installation and monitoring of a tracking device on his vehicle and that 

suppression of the cocaine is warranted because his Fourth Amendment rights 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51177 Document: 00513765643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2016
No. 15-51177

2

were violated since the tracking warrant was supported by a bare bones 

affidavit. When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review factual 

findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Pack, 

612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2010).

Where a suspect refuses to yield to a show of authority by the police, the 

suspect is not seized by the police until such time as he submits or is forced to 

submit to police authority. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 

(1991). Because a seizure does not occur when a mere show of authority occurs, 

only when the suspect yields to a show of authority, the Fourth Amendment 

does not apply to anything that the suspect abandons while fleeing the police 

in an attempt to avoid a seizure. See id. at 629.

The undisputed facts in this case are that when law enforcement tried to 

stop Wilson, Wilson attempted to evade police and disposed of the cocaine 

during his flight. Even assuming, as Wilson contends, that the tracking 

warrant was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the 

ensuing attempted traffic stop was somehow also illegal, the cocaine Wilson 

disposed of during flight was abandoned prior to his seizure and, therefore, 

“was not the fruit of a seizure.” Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 629. To the extent 

Wilson’s argument can be read as contending that he did not voluntarily 

abandon the cocaine but relinquished it as a result of police misconduct, the 

existence of police pursuit or investigation at the time of abandonment does 

not of itself render the abandonment involuntary. United States v. Colbert, 

474 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1973). Wilson does not actually argue police 

misconduct, and the record does not indicate that the police did anything other 

than attempt to conduct a traffic stop. As Wilson lacks standing, the district 

court did not err by denying his motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-51177 Document: 00513765643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2016