E.D.Tex.: Not attempting to show possessory interest in allegedly stolen car until after arrest showed no REP

While the description of the driver was somewhat off, the car was identified by a witness as a stolen car, and that was at least reasonable suspicion for a stop. After the car was stopped, defendant fled from it. He did nothing to assert a possessory interest in the car for the two weeks he had it until he was arrested, and that was too little, too late. United States v. Poole, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152104 (E.D. Tex. December 30, 2011)*:

Poole apparently argues that he had a possessory interest in the vehicle because Gordon allegedly gave him the vehicle when they stopped dating two weeks prior to the traffic stop. He did not, however, assert his possessory interest to the law enforcement officers prior to the search of the vehicle. See United States v. Riazco, 91 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 1996). Instead, Poole chose to run when Deputy Hall attempted to arrest him. He never returned to the vehicle. Poole was located and arrested four days later. Even if the Court were to assume that Poole had a legal possessory interest in the vehicle, his decision to flee the scene and not return resulted in a voluntary abandonment of the vehicle. A defendant has no standing to complain about the search of property that he voluntarily abandons. United States v. Quiroz-Hernandez, 48 F.3d 858, 864 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc). As set forth above, the initial stop and attempted arrest of Poole were proper, rendering Poole’s abandonment of the vehicle voluntary and not influenced by improper police conduct. Id.; see also United States v. Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287, 289-90 (5th Cir. 1993). Poole’s challenge to the search of the vehicle is without merit.