D.Conn.: No REP in airplane and contents by absent co-conspirator who claimed ownership

There was a “ramp check” authorized by FAA regulation of a private plane at an airport in Connecticut, essentially a traffic stop. It was admitted that a small quantity of marijuana was on the plane. The automobile exception applies to private, non-commercial airplanes. Movant claimed he was essentially a silent partner in the airplane, not on the paperwork but paying for it. He also claimed to own the duffle bags containing the marijuana. They weren’t in his possession, and he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them. A property rights claim was also discussed and rejected. United States v. Bodnar, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23951 (D. Conn. Feb. 14, 2019):

Courts weigh a variety of considerations in determining whether an expectation of privacy is reasonable. See Byrd, 138 S. Ct. at 1527 (“Although the Court has not set forth a single metric or exhaustive list of considerations to resolve the circumstances in which a person can be said to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it has explained that ‘legitimation of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” (quoting Rakas, 439 U.S. at 144 n.12)). Here, regardless of whether Defendants were technically owners of the airplane and/or duffle bags, the circumstances of the search make clear that Defendants’ expectation of privacy is not “one that society is prepared to accept as reasonable,” Smith, 442 U.S. at 740 (internal quotation omitted): i) Defendants were not present at the time of the search and did not maintain possession of or the right to exclude others from the airplane or duffle bags, ii) they placed those duffle bags under the control of a third party, and iii) the bags were transported on a readily-mobile, highly-regulated airplane. Given those considerations, the Court finds that Defendants had no legitimate expectation of privacy and therefore cannot challenge the search under the Fourth Amendment.