Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tori Yvette SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-19
Citations: 22 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 01-4422
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tori Yvette SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tori Yvette SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4422.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 2001.
Decided Nov. 19, 2001.
Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, DC, for appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, Maurice Eitel Stucke, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Tori Yvette Smith was tried and convicted by a magistrate judge of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The district court affirmed her conviction and sen- tenee. On appeal, Smith alleges that the district court erred by affirming the magistrate judge's decision to deny her motions to suppress her confession and certain evidence seized during a warrantless search of her pocketbook. Specifically, Smith alleges that her confession should have been suppressed because she was not advised of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and that officers should have obtained a warrant prior to searching her pocketbook. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review the magistrate judge's ultimate suppression decision de novo, but the underlying factual decisions are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). After reviewing all of the circumstances, we find that Miranda warnings were not required because Smith was not in custody when she made her confession. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994); United States v. Braxton, 112 F.3d 777, 781-83 (4th Cir.1997).
We further find that the magistrate judge and district court properly denied Smith's motion to suppress marijuana found in her pocketbook. Smith did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy after leaving the pocketbook in a locker beyond the twenty-four hour rental period. United States v. Reyes, 908 F.2d 281, 285 (8th Cir.1990). Moreover, Smith abandoned the pocketbook by failing to make any attempt to retrieve it. Finally, it was not unreasonable for officers to inspect what appeared to be abandoned property to determine the owner's identity. United States v. O'Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528, 1534 (11th Cir.1985).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of Smith's motions to suppress. We further affirm Smith's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3401 (West Supp.2001).
. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3402 (West Supp.2001).
. We further reject Smith's contention that she was in custody because she was the prime suspect. See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323-25, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (citing Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976)).
. See Gudema v. Nassau County, 163 F.3d 717, 722 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that there is no privacy interest in abandoned property).