COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton 

KEITH A. ROBINSON, S/K/A 

 KEITH ANDRE ROBINSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0521-97-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 FEBRUARY 10, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Edward W. Hanson, Jr., Judge 

 (Everett Carter Meixel, on brief), for 

appellant.1

 (Richard Cullen, Attorney General; John K. 

Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on 

brief. 

 Keith A. Robinson contends on appeal that the trial court 

erred in denying his motion to suppress the imitation crack 

cocaine that was found in his automobile. He argues that he 

never consented to a search, and that even if he did consent, the 

police exceeded the scope of that consent. We find no error and 

affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 On December 14, 1995, Virginia Beach Police Officers A. J. 

Spiess and T. M. Gandy stopped a vehicle driven by Robinson for a 

defective headlight and improper window tinting. The vehicle was 

occupied by Robinson and a passenger. Officer G. A. Fox arrived 

shortly thereafter. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 1Counsel for appellant failed to appear. We decided the 

case on the briefs and record, without oral argument. 
- 2 - 

 While Spiess prepared a summons, Fox and Gandy asked 

Robinson two or three times for permission to search his car. 

Fox testified that he advised Robinson that he could refuse. 

Robinson asked the officers why they needed to search his 

vehicle. He testified that he never consented. Fox and Gandy 

testified that Robinson consented to a search of his car for 

weapons and that he assisted Gandy in the search. 

 During the search, Gandy discovered a black nylon bag under 

the front passenger-side seat. Robinson told Gandy that the bag 

did not belong to him and that she should be able to check the 

bag for weapons by feeling the outside. After the passenger and 

Robinson denied ownership of the bag, Gandy told them: "if the 

bag didn't belong to either of them then they wouldn't mind if I 

take a look inside the bag." Upon opening the bag, Gandy 

discovered two off-white, rock-like substances, the size of 

"rice-cakes," which appeared to be crack cocaine. 

 Robinson contends that he never gave the officers consent to 

search the car or to examine the contents of the bag. We need 

not decide this issue because Robinson failed to prove that he 

had standing to assert a right to protection against unreasonable 

searches and seizures with respect to the bag. See McCoy v. 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 309, 311, 343 S.E.2d 383, 384 (1986). 

 A defendant may contest a search only if he or she possesses 

a reasonable expectation of privacy in the object seized or the 

place searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 130 (1978). 
- 3 - 

"'One who voluntarily abandons property forfeits any expectation 

of privacy he or she may have in it' and all standing to complain 

of its warrantless search and seizure." Wechsler v. 

Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 162, 173, 455 S.E.2d 744, 749 (1995) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Holloway, 9 Va. App. 11, 18, 384 S.E.2d 

99, 103 (1989)). 

 "Whether a person intends to retain a 

reasonable expectation of privacy in property 

is to be determined by objective standards. 

Such an intent may be inferred from words, 

acts, and other objective facts." Two 

factors are particularly relevant in 

ascertaining intent: physical relinquishment 

of the property and denial of ownership. "If 

a person relinquishes possession and 

disclaims ownership of personal property, he 

or she surrenders any expectation of privacy 

in the property." 

Id. (citations omitted). 

 Viewing all of the circumstances, we find that Robinson 

failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the 

bag and its contents. When questioned regarding the bag, he 

disclaimed ownership. When Gandy stated that because no one 

owned the bag, she was going to examine its contents, Robinson 

did not object. Robinson thus manifested a lack of expectation 

of privacy in the bag and abandoned it for Fourth Amendment 

purposes. See Williams v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 53, 70, 354 

S.E.2d 79, 88-89 (1986) (finding no expectation of privacy in 

locked briefcase disclaimed by defendant); Wechsler, 20 Va. App. 

at 173-74, 455 S.E.2d at 749 (finding that defendant abandoned 

property by leaving luggage in airport and denying ownership). 
- 4 - 

See also United States v. Piaget, 915 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 

1990) (finding that bag in trunk of defendant's car was abandoned 

when he stated that he knew nothing about it); United States v. 

McBean, 861 F.2d 1570, 1574 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that 

defendant who told officer that luggage in his car was not his 

and that he had no knowledge of its contents did not have 

reasonable expectation of privacy in the luggage). 

 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.