OR: Def didn’t abandon backpack by not affirmatively claiming ownership of it during vehicle search by consent

The officer had reasonable suspicion something was up and the driver of a van already stopped consented to a search of the van, but that did not include a backpack that didn’t belong to him. Defendant did not abandon the backpack by not affirmatively claiming that it was his when he was claiming other property in the vehicle. There was no affirmative disclaiming ownership. State v. Jones, 280 Ore. App. 135, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 975 (Aug. 3, 2016).

Defendant claimed the search warrant was overbroad because his bedroom was actually a separate dwelling unit within the house named in the warrant. The court finds as fact that it wasn’t a separate dwelling unit and that the place was objectively a single family dwelling. United States v. Hoston, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102737 (E.D.N.C. July 11, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102423 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Overbreadth. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.