D.Utah: Parole search doesn’t extend to car parolee was a passenger in

The parole search of car defendant was a passenger in was invalid because it wasn’t his. United States v. Tafuna, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194829 (D.Utah Oct. 1, 2019):

Tafuna’s parole agreement provides that “my … vehicle” is subject to search by law enforcement officers without a warrant and without cause. This agreement conforms with Utah Code section 77-23-301(1), which states that parolees must sign an agreement permitting suspicionless searches “of the inmate’s … vehicle.” The word “my,” which modifies vehicle in the parole agreement, indicates that Tafuna waived his Fourth Amendment rights as to vehicles that he owns or operates. “My” is the possessive form of “I” and can indicate ownership of a piece of property, e.g., “my diamond ring” or “my pencil.” Even in the absence of title ownership, “my” could also describe a vehicle operated by the parolee. For example, if the parolee had borrowed a relative’s vehicle to drive to the store, he could reasonably say: “A cop pulled over my vehicle because I was speeding.” The term, “my vehicle,” however, cannot be stretched to include any vehicle that the parolee occupied as a passenger because the parolee would lack the ownership or control required to claim possession of the vehicle.

In this case, Tafuna did not own the vehicle that was searched; it was his friend’s car. Nor did Tafuna exercise possession or control over the vehicle by driving it. He merely sat in the passenger seat of the parked vehicle. Thus, the plain language of the parole agreement signed by Tafuna did not waive his Fourth Amendment rights as to the passenger area where Officer Nelson discovered the firearm. Accordingly, Officer Nelson violated the Fourth Amendment when he searched this area without probable cause, and the firearm discovered pursuant to this search is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654-55 (1961).

The court also concludes that Tafuna’s admission that the firearm was his, which was elicited during an interrogation conducted after Officer Nelson discovered the firearm, must also be excluded. …