Opinion ID: 3203386
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: August 31, 2012 Search

Text: Witten argues that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the search of his backpack on August 31 because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for loitering and prowling, or, in the alternative, he did not abandon his backpack. We conclude that district court properly denied the motion to suppress because Witten abandoned his backpack. No seizure of property exists under the Fourth Amendment when a person abandons property. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58 (1924). To determine whether an individual has abandoned property, we ask whether the individual “voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in the property in question so that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at the time of the search.” Ramos, 12 F.3d at 1022 (internal quotation marks omitted). Abandonment “is a question of intent which may be inferred from acts, words and other objective facts.” Id. at 1022-23 (internal quotation marks omitted). When an individual relinquishes possession and disclaims ownership of a piece of property such as an article of luggage, she loses any expectation of privacy in that property. See United States v. McKennon, 814 F.2d 1539, 1546 (11th Cir. 10 Case: 14-14692 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 11 of 16 1987). For example, we have held that a defendant abandoned bags he was carrying when he placed them on the ground, denied that they were his, and walked away from them in response to police officers’ request to search. United States v. Cofield, 272 F.3d 1303, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2001). We cannot say that the district court committed clear error in finding that Witten abandoned his backpack and therefore denying the motion to suppress. Witten fled from the officers and hid his backpack under the porch of another person’s house. When the officers asked where his backpack was, Witten replied that it was at the house or his house. In either case, Witten attempted to deceive the officers by implying that his backpack was located elsewhere. Instead, the backpack lay 12 to 15 feet away, tucked underneath the house behind him. Witten need not have expressly disclaimed ownership of the bag because he effectively did so both by placing it away from his person and by stating it was at home. See id. To the extent that Witten contends the search of the backpack was unconstitutional because either his abandonment was involuntary or the search was the fruit of the poisonous tree after an illegal detention, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Witten hid the backpack before officers detained him. Several patrol officers had set up a perimeter to locate Witten at the same time he placed the bag under the porch, but such action does not amount to a detention, much less 11 Case: 14-14692 Date Filed: 05/13/2016 Page: 12 of 16 an unconstitutional one that would taint the subsequent search of the backpack. Because any alleged unconstitutional stop or arrest occurred after Witten abandoned the backpack, the search cannot be the fruit of the poisonous tree. See Fletcher v. Wainwright, 399 F.2d 62, 64 (5th Cir. 1968) (noting that, to suppress evidence, there must be a “nexus between the lawless [police] conduct and the discovery of the challenged evidence”).3 Additionally, the officers’ search for Witten did not force him to discard his bag involuntarily. See United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc) (“Police pursuit or the existence of a police investigation does not of itself render abandonment involuntary.”) The district court properly denied the motion to suppress the evidence found in the backpack.