Court Opinion

ID: 9469551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:43:47.993325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:24.944744
License: Public Domain

NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I would affirm on the ground that the initial investigatory stop amounted to a seizure, United States v. Patino, 649 F.2d 724, 726-27 (9th Cir. 1981), and the DEA agent did not have reasonable suspicion to make the seizure, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The record supports the district court’s factual finding that Belcher “reasonably believed that he . .. was not free to leave.” Patino, 649 F.2d at 726-27. The agent’s only justification for making the seizure was the presence of factors such that Belcher “fit the so-called ‘drugs courier profile.’ ” Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 2753, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980). The presence of these factors alone could not, “as a matter of law,” give the agent reasonable suspicion to seize Belcher. Id. at 441, 100 S.Ct. at 2754.
Since I would affirm on this ground, I need not reach the question of the seizure of Belcher’s shoulder bag. Nonetheless, I am troubled by the majority’s attempt to reconcile the decisions in United States v. Martell, 654 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1981), and United States v. O’Connor, 658 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1981). I cannot accept the majority’s reading of Martell: that it involved a seizure of “unattended” suitcases. See ante, at 290. Nothing in Judge Curtis’ opinion in Martell suggests that the suitcases were unattended at the moment of seizure;1 nor did Judge Curtis offer this fact as important to his holding. Rather, Judge Curtis relied on the holding of United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 253, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 1032, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970) (allowing detention of packages already placed in the mail), for the broad proposition that officers can seize objects from a person’s possession merely on a showing of reasonable suspicion. 654 F.2d at 1359-61. Nowhere did Judge Curtis justify the seizure on the theory that the suspects had relinquished possession of their suitcases. Such a theory would require analysis of the suspects’ legitimate expectations of privacy in the luggage; yet no privacy analysis is to be found in Martell.2
*292Judge Nelson, in dissent, took issue with the majority’s analysis precisely because it created such a remarkable exception to traditional Fourth Amendment standards. See, e.g., 654 F.2d at 1363 (Nelson, J., dissenting) (“such an approach is a profound departure from both Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent”). For the reasons expressed in Judge Nelson’s dissent, I sharply disagree with Martell and agree with O’Connor that the Fourth Amendment standard of “probable cause” governs the seizure of objects. 658 F.2d 692 n.6. But it is not for a single judge acting alone, or even for a panel of judges, to rewrite Ninth Circuit law; it is for our court acting en banc to repair the damage of Martell and resolve the conflict between that decision and O’Connor.

. As Judge Curtis recited the facts, .the suspects left the suitcases momentarily unattended in the “security” area while they had a drink, and the agents seized the suspects as they were approaching the “boarding” area. Martell, 654 F.2d at 1358. Judge Curtis did not specify whether the agents seized the suitcases (1) while the suspects were having a drink outside the security area, (2) after the suspects had been detained but before the suspects had returned to their suitcases, or (3) after the suspects had returned to the security area and picked up their suitcases. In any case, the suspects had neither checked the suitcases nor otherwise relinquished possession; thus, there was no suggestion that the suspects had lost their expectation of privacy in the suitcases.

. I do not dispute that a warrantless search of “abandoned” property does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 698, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). But Martell is certainly not a case of abandoned property. A finding of abandonment requires detailed consideration of the party’s intent as measured by his “words, acts, and other objective facts.” United States v. Jackson, 544 F.2d 407, 409 (9th Cir. 1976). Martell contains no consideration of these factors; nor is there any suggestion that the district court had found that Martell had aban*292doned his suitcase within the meaning of Abel and Jackson. I thus fail to see the basis for the majority’s suggestion that Martel was a case of abandoned property.