OH6: Computer hard drive brought to police was not abandoned property just because they couldn’t find their suspect

Defendant’s mother discovered that he had child pornography on his computer, and she brought the hard drive to the police. The police made some effort to locate the defendant, but he was hard to find because the police were looking for him. They decided to declare the hard drive abandoned and searched it, but the court found no evidence of abandonment. State v. Gould, 2010 Ohio 3437, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 2925 (6th Dist. July 23, 2010):

[*P28] The state contends that the hard drive was abandoned by appellant. Abandoned property is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Abel v. United States (1960), 362 U.S. 217, 80 S. Ct. 683, 4 L. Ed. 2d 668. “Abandonment is primarily a question of intent, and intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts.” United States v. Colbert (C.A.5, 1973), 474 F.2d 174, 176. In determining whether someone has abandoned property, “[a]ll relevant circumstances existing at the time of the alleged abandonment should be considered.” Id. “The issue is not abandonment in the strict property-right sense, but whether the person prejudiced by the search had 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.” Id.

[*P29] At the suppression hearing, there was no evidence presented to demonstrate appellant’s intent, by words spoken or acts done, to abandon the hard drive.

[*P30] While intent of one in possession of property or premises often cannot be inferred from his actions, abandonment will not be presumed. It must be clearly established by the party asserting it. Coleman v. Maxwell (C.A.6, 1967), 387 F.2d 134, certiorari denied (1968), 393 U.S. 1007, 89 S. Ct. 492, 21 L. Ed. 2d 472. Mere absence from the premises without a clear intention to abandon could not legitimize a search of property found therein. U.S. v. Robinson (C.A.6, 1970), 430 F.2d 1141.

[*P31] Detective Lester’s subjective belief that the hard drive had been abandoned was unsupported by the objective facts and Easterwood’s testimony. More significantly, the detective could have obtained additional information concerning the circumstances surrounding Easterwood’s access to the computer hard drive through further questioning and properly sought a search warrant for the hard drive. Accordingly, we find that the state failed to demonstrate by credible, competent evidence that the hard drive was abandoned.

Defendant was asked in Spanish for consent to search his vehicle, which he granted, after a simple and direct question. He was not Mirandized as he should have been, but that does not make the consent invalid. United States v. Solano-Fell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74324 (W.D. N.Y. May 17, 2010).*

Officers had a call of a suspicious person selling drugs on a street corner, so they went there, saw him, and approached. He threw down a gun, and that was probable cause to arrest. United States v. Chissem, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129098 (E.D. Mo. April 17, 2009).*

Two apparent hand-to-hand sales of a man under surveillance was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Beard, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129131 (E.D. Mo. April 8, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.