Opinion ID: 222783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Mr. Kitchell's Appeal of the Denial of the Motion to Suppress

Text: Mr. Kitchell challenges the district court's denial of the motion to suppress on three bases. He argues that (1) the traffic stop and search violated the Fourth Amendment; (2) the canine sniff violated the Fourth Amendment; and (3) the video of the conversation between Mr. Shigemura and Mr. Kitchell should not have been admitted because they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the patrol car. As to Mr. Kitchell's first two arguments, we have already determined that neither the stop nor the canine sniff violated the appellants' Fourth Amendment rights, and so these arguments are unavailing. [14] With respect to his final argument, Mr. Kitchell did not raise this issue below, and thus has waived it. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C), (e); White, 584 F.3d at 948-49. In any event, Mr. Kitchell himself concedes that all of the Circuits have held there is no expectation of privacy to a conversation held by parties in the backseat of a police car, (K. Aplt. Br. at 26), and that this Court reached this same conclusion under the facts of a case involving a stop and search like the one here, see United States v. Turner, 209 F.3d 1198, 1200-01 (10th Cir.2000). For these reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of the joint motion to suppress.