FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 66 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 03 24 -WSD-RGV-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PHILLIP BR IAN JEFFER SON, a.k .a. Ph il li p J effe rs on , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ph il li p J effe rs onap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of c oc ai ne with

in te ntto di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(C) . The o nl y is su e o n app eal is whet he r th e ev id en ce fo un d i n J effe rs on ’s car af te r a traff ic st op – i nc lu di ng co cai ne an d agu n–sh ou ldha ve be ensupp res se d. Th e g ov ern m en t arg ue s t ha t the sea rchwas p ro pe rly con du ct eddu rin g arou ti ne in ve nt ory sea rch aft er the car was de em ed“ ab an do ne d.” Jef fers onarg ue s t ha t the ve hi cl e was no t

“ vo lu nt ari ly” aban do ne d b ecau se he lef t the car wh il e fl eei ng to av oi d t he ex ces si ve us e o f fo rce b y th e p ol ic e o ffi cer. The fact s el ic it edat the supp res si on he ari ng in di cat edth atJef fers on ’s ve hi cl e was st op pe d b y

Ric ha rdBart he le m

y , an o ffi cer wi th th e Atl an taPo li ce Dep artm en t (“ APD”), fo r sp eed in g a nddri vi ng with a n e xp ire d t ag . Duri ng th e tra ffi c st op , an a lt erca ti onoc cu rredbe twee n J effe rs on an d B arthe le m y , and Je ffer so n fl edth e sc en e. Fo ll owi ng Jef fers on ’s fli gh t, Ba rth el em y co nduc te d a n in ve nt ory sea rch of t he ve hi cl e p ur su an t t o a n APD p ol ic y di rect in g i nv en to ry se arch es to be pe rfo rm edon ve hi cl es with e xp ire d t ag s ab an do ne d o n c ity street s. The search rev eal edth e co cai ne forpo ss es si on of wh ic h J effe rs on was c on vi ct ed . On ap pe al , Jef

fers on arg ue s t ha t h e d idno t ab an do n t he ve hi cl e. Rathe r, he arg ue s t ha t h e h adto fle e due to Bart he le m y ’s un reas on ab le us e o f fo rce. Ru li ng s o n m ot io ns to supp res s i nv ol ve m ix edqu es ti on s o f fac t an d l aw. 2Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra mos , 12 F.3d10 19 , 10 22 (11 th Cir .19 94 ). Aban do nm en t

in vo lv es a factua l i ss ue whi ch is ge ne ral ly revi ewedun de r a cl earl y erro ne ou s st an da rd . Uni te d Sta tes v. McK en no n , 81 4 F .2d15 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) . The go ve rn m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g aband on m en t, an d s ei zu re o f ev id en ce m ay

no t b e co nt es te d a s v io la ti ve of t he Fo urth Am en dm en t i f th e ev id en ce h as be enab an do ne d. Uni te d Sta tes v. C of ie ld , 27 2 F .3d13 03 , 13 06 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Evid en ce m ay be de em edab an do ne d upo n a n i nd iv idua l’s rel in qu is hm en t o f po ss es si on or c on tro l o ve r it . Id . at 1 30 6- 07 . The cri ti cal in qu iry in d et erm in in g wh ethe r pr op erty ha s b eenab an do ne d i s “ whe th er the pe rs on pre

jud ic edby the sea rch . . . vo lu nt ari ly dis card ed , lef t b eh in d, o r othe rwis e re li nq uish ed

his i nt er es t i n the pr op er ty in qu es ti on so th athe co ul d n o l on ge r ret ai n areas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy w it h re ga rdto itat the ti m e o f th e se arch .” Ramo s , 12 F.3dat 1 02 2 (q uo ta ti on s an d c it at io ns om it te d) (em ph as is in or ig in al ). Alt ho ug h ab an do nm en t tha t i s m erel y th e p ro du ctof p ol ic e m is co nduc t m ay no t b e v ol un ta ry , Uni te d Sta tes v. Pi ro ll i , 67 3 F .2d12 00 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ), “ [p ]oli ce p ur su itor t he ex is te nc e o f a p ol ic e in ve st ig at io n d oe s n otof i ts el f ren de r ab an do nm en t i nv ol un tary .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C ol be rt , 47 4 F .2d17 4 (5 th Ci r. 19 73 ). Here, the m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndth atJef fers ondi d n otret ai n a 3reas on ab le expe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in h is ve hi cl e b ecau se hi s fl ig htfro m th e sc en e was no t p ro m

pt edby an ex ces si ve us e o f fo rce b y th e p ol ic e o ffi cer. Ra th er, Je ffer so n’s ab an do nm en t was de em edvo lu nt ary, ev encred it in g J effe rs on ’s ve rs io n o f ev en ts . The m ag is tra te fou ndth atBart he le m y was aut ho riz edto : (1 ) or de r Je ffer so n t o e xi t the ve hi cl e; (2) tak e act io n t o p hysic al ly rem ov e Je ffer so n whe n h e fai le d t o c om

pl y ; an d (3 ) us e p ep pe r sp ray whe n i t b ecame ob vi ou s t ha t Je ffer so n was refu si ng to co m pl y with B arthe le m

y ’s ord ers an d was ph y si cal ly res is ti ng . Furt he r, th e m ag is tra te fou ndth atJef fers on ha d i ni ti at edth e p hysic al co nf ro nt at io n b y

pu sh in g B arthe le m

y ’s arm ou t o f th e car

win do w, andha d co nt in ue d p hysic al ly resi st in g dur in g t he stru gg le to ge t o utof t he car. Onth is reco rd , we fin d n o c le ar erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t J effe rs on ab an do ne d h is ve hi cl e v ol un taril y , andno t as a res ul t o f a p ol ic e o ffi cer’s ex ces si ve us e o f fo rce. W e h av e h el d t ha t p ol ic e o ffi cers m ay carry ou t warran tl es s i nv en to ry se arch es of v eh ic le s, p ro vi de d tha t the sea rch is co nduc te d “ pu rs ua ntto ex pl ic it an d c om pr eh en si ve pro cedur es ,” su ch th atoff ic ers ha ve gu id an ce i n p erfo rm in g a ta skth atis no t an in ve st ig at ory tec hn ique , bu t i ns te adaim s t o p ro te ctin di vi du al s’ po ss es si on s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 93 6 F .2d12 43 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). The go ve rn m en t m

us t es tabl is h, fi rs t, tha t the off ic ers ha d t he au th or it y

to 4im

po un d t he de fen da nt ’s veh ic le , andsec on d, t ha t the off ic ers co m pl ie d wi th de pa rtmenta l p ol ic y

in co nduc ti ng th e se arch . Id . The rea so nabl en es s o f an in ve nt ory sea rch de pe nd s o n t he pa rti cu la r fac ts an d c irc um st an ces . Uni te d Sta tes v. La in g , 70 8 F .2d15 68 , 15 71 (11 thCir . 19 83 ). Here, the in ve nt ory

search of J effe rs on ’s veh ic le was c on du ct edpu rs ua ntto anAPD po li cy

all owi ng forth e im

po un di ng an d i nv en to ry in g o f ve hi cl es ab an do ne d o n c it y

st reet s wi th ex pi redtag s. Acco rd in gl y , bec au se Jef fers on ’s ab an do nm en t o f hi s v eh ic le was p ro pe rly deem edvo lu nt ary, we affi rm hi s co nv ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

5