Opinion ID: 374786
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: right to challenge search

Text: 8 We conclude that Canady did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the suitcase and its contents and therefore cannot object to the seizure of the heroin. Our decision is controlled by Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) and by this Court's holdings in United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc) and United States v. Anderson, 500 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1974). 1 9 In Colbert, the police recognized the two defendants as suspected felons. As the police approached the defendants, the defendants set the briefcases they were carrying down on the sidewalk. In response to questions, the defendants denied that they owned the briefcases or had any knowledge about them, and began to walk away from the officers, leaving the briefcases on the sidewalk. When the defendants were unable to produce draft cards at the officer's request, the officers arrested the defendants for failure to carry Selective Service Registration Cards, and placed them in the patrol car. The police then opened the briefcases, finding sawed-off shotguns inside. The defendants were convicted for possession of unregistered sawed-off shotguns. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed their convictions, holding that defendants had abandoned the briefcases, and thus had no standing to challenge the search. 10 In Anderson, defendant Spicer was arrested in an airport after having checked certain bags. Upon his arrest, the police took the baggage claim checks from his ticket and recovered two bags from the plane. The defendant claimed ownership of one of the bags, but disclaimed ownership of the other. The bags and the defendant were taken to the police station where the luggage was opened and searched without a warrant. The unclaimed suitcase contained a pistol with defendant's thumbprint on the holster, and other incriminating evidence. The defendant was convicted of a narcotics felony, and of carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony. This Court, citing Colbert as controlling, held that the pistol and other contents of the unclaimed bag were admissible because defendant had abandoned the bag. Thus defendant had no expectation of privacy and lacked standing to challenge the search of the unclaimed suitcase. 11 This Circuit's Colbert and Anderson decisions speak in terms of the defendant's standing to challenge the search. The Supreme Court in Rakas discarded that terminology in favor of an inquiry into the substantive question of whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy, 439 U.S. at 143, 99 S.Ct. at 430, protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court stated: But we think the better analysis (to determine whether a defendant may challenge a search) forthrightly focuses on the extent of a particular defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment, rather than on any theoretically separate, but invariably intertwined concept of standing. Id. at 139, 99 S.Ct. at 428. The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that (t)he inquiry under either approach is the same Id. at 139, 99 S.Ct. at 428. Accordingly, the holdings in Colbert and Anderson, that a defendant has no standing to challenge the search of an abandoned briefcase or an unclaimed suitcase, are properly subsumed, Id. at 139, 99 S.Ct. at 428, under the Rakas analysis utilizing the concept of no legitimate expectation of privacy in the abandoned or unclaimed items. 12 In the instant case, Canady disclaimed ownership of the suitcase, first to Officer LeStage at the first checkpoint, again to Officer Short at the second checkpoint, then to Officer Mangrum as Canady and Mangrum walked back to the second checkpoint, again to Officer Mangrum after the suitcase had been searched, and finally to Agent Markonni. 2 13 We hold here, as in Colbert and Anderson, that Canady abandoned the suitcase, 3 and, applying the Rakas analysis, we hold that Canady had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the suitcase or its contents. He had no expectation of privacy deriving from a property interest 4 or from any understanding recognized and permitted by society, 439 U.S. at 144, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. at 431, because he had abandoned the suitcase. 14 Therefore, Canady cannot challenge the searches involved in this case 5 , and his conviction is accordingly 15 AFFIRMED.