IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOSE LUIS MAMANI-VIDAL, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) 

JONES, District Judge, 

3: l 5-cr-00044-8-JO 

OPINION & ORDER 

Defendant is charged with several felony counts alleging he possessed with the intent to 

distribute heroin in fmiherance of a drug distribution conspiracy. The matter is before the comi on 

defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the Wat1'antless search of a duffel bag in 

which law enforcement officers found approximately seven pounds of heroin. [ # 626] I heard 

testimony and received exhibits at an evidentiary hearing on Februaiy 10, 2017. During the hearing, 

I found that defendant abandoned the duffel bag and had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to 

its contents when the officers conducted their search. Accordingly, I denied his motion to suppress. 

I now supplement that iuling with the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

BACKGROUND 

For several months before December 23, 2014, law enforcement personnel in an interagency 

task force were investigating a large scale heroin distribution conspiracy that was impo1iing heroin 

from Mexico, transporting it to Portland, and distributing it regionally. In the course of the 

-1- OPINION & ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00044-JO Document 705 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 7
investigation, DEA agents were wiretapping the telephones of several conspirators, including the 

regional leader of the conspiracy, a Pmiland resident named Chris Guillen-Robles. Defendant does 

not challenge the wiretaps in this motion. The interagency task force included agents of the Oregon 

State Police, the Clackamas County Sheriffs office, and other local agencies and had assistance from 

Special Agent Phil Brown of the DEA and Special Agent Ryan Pmion of the FBI. 

On the morning of December 23, 2014, Special Agent Brown was monitoring 

communications on the wiretapped phones when Guillen-Robles received a text message from a 

telephone with a Utah area code and a number ending in 8831. The person who sent the text 

message indicated that he would be aniving in Portland at 10:30 that night. By checking a deconfliction database of infmmation derived from DEA investigations across the countiy, Special 

Agent Brown determined that the 8831 number had been seen in other investigations, including one 

in which the number had been associated with a heroin courier known as "Jose." From this, Special 

Agent Brown reasonably believed that a Hispanic male named Jose with a Utah telephone would be 

delivering heroin to Guillen-Robles in Pmiland at 10:30 that night. 

Special Agent Brown was aware that another conspirator using a wiretapped phone had used 

a Greyhound Bus to travel to Potiland the previous week. He detetmined that a northbound 

Greyhound Bus was scheduled to arrive in Pmiland at 10:30 that night. Based on this knowledge, 

Special Agent Brown informed members of the task force that it was likely a Hispanic male courier 

would arrive at the Pmiland bus station at 10:30 that night with a delivety of heroin. 

Special Agent Brown continued to monitor communications in a remote wire room. 

Meanwhile, Special Agent Parton and approximately ten members of the interagency task force, 

including at least one drug sniffing dog, were deployed at the Potiland bus station to await the anival 

-2- OPINION & ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00044-JO Document 705 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 7
of the 10:30 bus. At approximately 10:40 p.m., the agents in the wire room intercepted text 

messages indicating that the person with the 8831 number had arrived and was going to wait outside 

for someone to pick him up. Within minutes, the wire room agents transmitted this information to 

members of the task force at the bus station. From this, Special Agent Parton reasonably believed 

that the Hispanic male they suspected of carrying heroin had arrived and was outside the bus station 

waiting for a ride. 

Meanwhile, task force officers inside the bus terminal observed two Hispanic males seated 

in the waiting area. A canine officer approached them, but his dog did not ale1i. The two men left 

the terminal and one of the task force officers followed them to a black Volvo station wagon parked 

outside. The officer recognized the car from earlier surveillance he had done connected with the 

same drug conspiracy investigation. The officer contacted the men and Special Agent Paiion helped 

him conduct a consent search of the car. The two men then drove away. 

At approximately 11 :12 p.m., agents in the wire room intercepted a telephone call from the 

8831 number to Guillen-Robles in which the caller said he was outside by a train stop and that he 

had seen police officers with dogs in and around the bus station. Special Agent Parton received this 

info1mation and reasonably believed that the suspected courier was waiting at a TriMet train stop 

near the bus station. Indeed, video from security cameras at the TriMet stop on NW Fifth A venue 

behind the bus station shows that defendant was standing by a ticket-dispensing kiosk at the TriMet 

stop when this call was made, although officers did not see the video until after the challenged 

search. 

Special Agent Brown in the wire room intercepted a second call between Guillen-Robles and 

the 8831 number. In that conversation, Guillen-Robles said that the runners sent to pick up the 

-3- OPINION & ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00044-JO Document 705 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 7
suspected courier were not answering their phones, and the two speculated that the runners might 

have been stopped by the police. The suspected courier said he wanted to move out of the area to 

be picked up by Guillen~Robles. 

Meanwhile, Special Agent Pation walked outside toward the back of the bus station where 

he knew the tracks for the TriMet train ran to the north and south along NW Fifth A venue. At 

approximately 11 :22 p.m., Special Agent Parton walked no1ih on NW Fifth Avenue next to the 

TriMet tracks and encountered defendant at the TriMet stop near a ticket kiosk. Special Agent 

Parton asked for defendant's identification and defendant gave him a Utah drivers license with the 

name Jose Mamani. Special Agent Parton asked to search a small backpack defendant was carrying, 

and defendant consented. While Special Agent Paiion and defendant were talking, Sgt. Marc Wold 

walked past them and waited down the street where they were still in sight. After a brief 

conversation, Special Agent Pa1ion resumed walking north. Immediately afterwards, Sgt. Wold saw 

defendant leave the area walking south. Within moments of ending his encounter with defendant, 

Special Agent Parton received a message from which he surmised that defendant fit the description 

of the man for whom they were looking. He returned to the TriMet stop, but defendant was gone. 

Special Agent Parton continued walking south looking for defendant, but did not find him. 

When Sgt. Wold saw defendant and then Special Agent Pation walk away to the south, he 

walked back toward the TriMet stop along a wall behind the bus station that runs next to NW Fifth 

Avenue parallel to the TriMet tracks. Approximately 22 feet from the TriMet kiosk where Special 

Agent Paiion had encountered defendant, Sgt. Wold saw a duffel bag sitting by some bushes next 

to the wall. Although it was a dark rainy night, the bag was clearly visible in plain view. Due to its 

proximity to the location where defendant had been, Sgt. Wold associated the bag with defendant. 

-4- OPINION & ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00044-JO Document 705 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 7
He reasonably concluded from defendant's conduct that defendant had abandoned the bag. 

Sgt. Wold informed the task force that he had found a bag and several officers converged at 

his location. No one in the area showed any interest in the bag and there was no one other than law 

enforcement personnel within several blocks of the location where the bag was found. The officers 

observed no identification tag on the bag. A canine officer anived, and the dog ale1ied to the 

presence of a controlled substance in the bag. The officers then searched the bag and found the 

seven pounds of heroin that defendant seeks to suppress. 

The government presented video from the security cameras at the TriMet stop showing that, 

before encountering Special Agent Parton, defendant placed a large bag in the area where Sgt. Wold 

found the duffel bag that was searched. This was not known to the officers at the time they 

conducted their search, however. The government also presented evidence that defendant left the 

area, was picked up by Guillen-Robles, and took a flight to Utah hours later. The officers did not 

know this at the time they searched the bag. 

STANDARDS 

The fomih amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the 

government and applies to searches and seizures by state law enforcement officers through the 

fomieenth amendment. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213 (1960). A wanantless search of 

abandoned prope1iy, however, does not violate the fomih amendment and a person who voluntarily 

abandons property has no standing to challenge its search and seizure. Abel v. United States, 362 

U.S. 217, 240-41 (1960); United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9'h Cir. 1986). 

Abandonment is a question of intent infened from words, acts, and other objective facts. United 

States v. Kendall, 655 F.2d 199, 201 (9'h Cir. 1981); United States v. Jackson, 544 F.2d 407, 409 (9'h 

-5- OPINION & ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00044-JO Document 705 Filed 02/15/17 Page 5 of 7
Cir. 1976). The determination is based on the totality of the circumstances and the inquiry must 

focus on whether, through objective indications, a person has relinquished interest in the property 

so that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the search and seizure. Nordling, 

804 F.2d at 1469. 

DISCUSSION 

Examining defendant's conduct objectively I find that he abandoned the duffel bag 

containing the heroin before the wmTantless search he challenges. He left the bag unattended in plain 

view without an identification tag to show an ownership interest. He deliberately walked away 

leaving the bag on a public street where any passerby would have access to it. I am satisfied that his 

actions are objectively inconsistent with a continued expectation of privacy in the property. 

Nordling, 804 F.2d at 1470. 

I reject defendant's argument that an express verbal disclaimer of possessory interest is 

necessary to find that he abandoned the duffel bag. Defendant's actions alone provide an adequate 

objective basis to conclude that he intended to disavow any interest whatsoever in the bag and the 

heroin it contained. 

I also reject defendant's argument that his actions showed an intent to retain a possessory 

interest in the bag by hiding it for later retrieval. As a factual matter, the bag was not hidden because 

Sgt. Wold found it in plain view in a public place. In addition, the task force officers knew from the 

intercepted texts and phone calls that defendant was aware of their presence. Knowing that police 

with drug sniffing dogs were in and around the bus station and suspecting that his transportation had 

been intercepted by police, the defendant walked away from the area leaving the bag behind. The 

most reasonable interpretation of the objective indications is that defendant intended to rid himself 

-6- OPINION & ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00044-JO Document 705 Filed 02/15/17 Page 6 of 7
of any connection to the bag and its incriminating contents. The objective factors fully supported 

Sgt. Wold's conclusion when he testified that it was clear to him that defendant had abandoned the 

bag. It makes no difference that defendant might have also retained some hope of retrieving the bag 

ifthe police or a passerby did not claim it first. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to suppress [# 626] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this IS-¥ day of February, 2017. 

. J311es 

tates District Judge 

-7- OPINION & ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00044-JO Document 705 Filed 02/15/17 Page 7 of 7