CA7: “Ditching” car and running away was an abandonment

Defendant ditched his car and ran, so it was abandoned. United States v. Vasquez, 635 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2011)*:

The search issue is a dead-bang loser. For one thing, the Bonneville was abandoned, and it’s hard to see, under the circumstances here, how Vasquez could argue with a straight face that he maintained an expectation of privacy in it after he ditched it and bolted off on the run. On top of that, it’s clear that the pursuing police had abundant probable cause to believe that drug money was in the car. What was the probable cause? Well, (1) Cruz told Diaz that Vasquez and Perez had the money with them; (2) no money was found during the searches of Vasquez and Perez; and (3) two drug-detection dogs indicated that there were narcotics in the passenger-side dashboard of the car. The motion to suppress was properly denied.

The police said defendant was in a high crime area, but it was an area with bars and restaurants, and a lot of people walked around there. “Moreover, police did not provide any link between the location and time of night with any alleged criminal activity by defendant. On the whole, the location and timing of where police observed Defendant are not particularly strong facts in support of reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Fox, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23949 (D. V.I. March 8, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.