Opinion ID: 2599114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duffel Bag

Text: [¶ 19] Andrews maintains that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the third duffel bag. The State argues that the trial court's decision was correct because Andrews did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the duffel bag, and the search was further justified by consent. [¶ 20] A defendant may challenge a search as being unconstitutional only if he can demonstrate that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property searched. Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 632, 636 (Wyo.2000); Dean v. State, 865 P.2d 601, 613 (Wyo.1993) (abrogated on other grounds by Vigil v. State, 926 P.2d 351 (Wyo.1996)). The defendant must show both an actual subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize. Dean, 865 P.2d at 613; Pellatz v. State, 711 P.2d 1138, 1141 (Wyo.1986). There are four factors that courts consider to determine whether an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property searched: (1) the precautions taken in order to maintain one's privacy; (2) the likely intent of the drafters of the United States and Wyoming Constitutions; (3) the property rights a claimant possesses in the invaded area; (4) the legitimacy of the individual's possession of or presence in the property which was searched or seized. Dean, 865 P.2d at 613 (quoting Pellatz, 711 P.2d at 1141). See also Putnam, 995 P.2d at 636. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently held that a defendant abandons any expectation of privacy when he unequivocally denies ownership of the property. See e.g., United States v. Garzon, 119 F.3d 1446, 1449-52 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 1172-73 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983). [¶ 21] In this case, Andrews repeatedly renounced ownership of the third duffel bag. When Deputy Jenkins initially questioned him about the third duffel bag, Andrews stated that it was not his. Deputy Jenkins informed Andrews that, if he was not the owner of the bag, then he did not have standing to object to the search of it. Andrews said that he understood and continued to deny ownership of the third bag. Deputy Jenkins then requested and received permission from Mr. Willis to search anything in the house that did not belong to Andrews. [¶ 22] Deputy Jenkins opened the third duffel bag and found the folder with documents containing Andrews' name. Andrews acknowledged that the documents were his but continued to disclaim ownership of the remainder of the contents of the bag. Andrews did not attempt to limit the deputy's search or profess ownership of the bag at any time during the search. [¶ 23] Clearly, Andrews did not take any precautions to maintain his privacy in the duffel bag. To the contrary, his words and actions demonstrated that he disavowed any ownership or interest in the bag. The framers of the United States and Wyoming constitutions and the citizens who ratified them surely did not intend that a defendant could unequivocally renounce any interest in the property and then later claim a constitutional violation when the officer relies on the defendant's statement and searches the property. Although Andrews subsequently stated that the duffel bag was his at the suppression hearing, we conclude that he abandoned his reasonable expectation of privacy in the third duffel bag at the time of the search. He did not, therefore, have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search of the third duffel bag. [¶ 24] Even if we were to conclude that Andrews had standing to challenge the search of the duffel bag, we would still affirm the trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress. The trial court ruled that the search was justified because there was a valid consent to the search. Many of the same facts we considered in ruling that Andrews abandoned his expectation of privacy in the duffel bag are also important in determining whether or not Deputy Jenkins properly relied upon the Willises' apparent authority to consent to the search of the bag. See United States v. Langston, 970 F.2d 692, 697-98 (10th Cir.), cert. denied Francis v. United States, 506 U.S. 965, 113 S.Ct. 439, 121 L.Ed.2d 358 (1992), and cert. denied Mcllroy v. United States, 506 U.S. 979, 113 S.Ct. 479, 121 L.Ed.2d 384 (1992), and cert. denied Ross v. United States, 506 U.S. 986, 113 S.Ct. 495, 121 L.Ed.2d 433 (1992), and cert. denied Mcllroy v. United States, 507 U.S. 1040, 113 S.Ct. 1872, 123 L.Ed.2d 491 (1993). [¶ 25] Gehnert, 956 P.2d at 361, provides guidance in resolving the consent issue because the facts of that case are similar to those presented in the case at bar. Gehnert challenged the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress the evidence seized during a search of her car. She claimed that the search of her car was illegal because neither she nor anyone with authority consented to the search. Id. The State argued that the search was justified because the detective had obtained consent from Gehnert's fiancé. Id. We quoted the United States Supreme Court case entitled Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) as follows: As with other factual determinations bearing upon search and seizure, determination of consent to enter must be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment... `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the consenting party had authority over the premises? Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). If not, then warrantless entry without further inquiry is unlawful unless authority actually exists. But if so, the search is valid. Gehnert, 956 P.2d at 362 (quoting Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 188-89, 110 S.Ct. at 2801). See also Jones v. State, 902 P.2d 686, 690 (Wyo. 1995). [¶ 26] Gehnert led the detective to believe that her fiancé owned the car and that she did not possess authority to consent to the search of the car. Gehnert, 956 P.2d at 361. Gehnert's fiancé told the detective that he was buying the car for her, but he was still technically the owner because he paid for the car and Gehnert's name was not yet on the title. Id. He then gave consent to search the car. Id. On appeal, Gehnert asserted that the car actually belonged to her and that she was the only person with the authority to consent to a search of it. Id. We ruled that the search was valid because the officers reasonably believed that Gehnert's fiancé had the authority to consent to it. 956 P.2d at 362-63. [¶ 27] In the case at bar, the Willises gave the officers permission to search their home when they were interviewed at the sheriff's office, and Mr. Willis reaffirmed his consent to search while Deputy Jenkins was at their home. The Willises were the owners of the residence and, therefore, had the authority to consent to the search of their home and belongings. See Jones, 902 P.2d at 690. [¶ 28] Andrews repeatedly denied any ownership or interest in the duffel bag, even after Deputy Jenkins explained that if he denied ownership of the property, he did not have standing to object to the search. Considering the facts available to Deputy Jenkins at the time, it was reasonable for him to rely on the Willises' apparent authority to consent to the search of the third duffel bag. The trial court correctly denied Andrews' motion to suppress.