Giving duffle bags to another for transport is a waiver of expectation of privacy in them

Defendant’s own testimony gave duffle bags with drugs to another to carry them, and that gave the other the ability to consent to a search. Gamez v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23219 (D. Utah March 21, 2008).*

Defendant consented to a search of his trunk. He was subjected to a patdown because of his excessive nervousness and admitted to having a shotgun in the trunk. “After completing the pat down search, Officer Vennard asked defendant if he could see the shotgun, and defendant responded ‘go ahead. It’s in the trunk.'” He was not under arrest, and, within the context of the totality of circumstances, this was consent. United States v. Derverger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22990 (N.D. N.Y. March 24, 2008).*

“By disclaiming any ownership interest in the vehicle, [the defendant] voluntarily abandoned his ownership interest in the Impala prior to the search, and thus, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle at the time of the search.” United States v. Ogburn, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23338 (S.D. Ind. March 20, 2008).*

While police reports are not admissible at trial, they can form the basis for a defendant filing a suppression motion. Once in, the court may rely on its content. United States v. Stoner, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23126 (E.D. Cal. March 12, 2008):

Ordinarily, police reports are inadmissible in criminal actions to prove the facts stated therein. Fed. R. Ev. 803(8). However, defendant Crowley attached Mahaffy’s police report to his suppression motion and relied upon it as the facts upon which the suppression motion should be made. Certainly, Crowley cannot object to use of the police report as the facts to be utilized by the court.

In any event, defendants again misapprehend their production burden on a motion to suppress. Excluding the Mahaffy police report leaves the court with the facts submitted in the Trojanowski declaration which provide: “On November 12, 2006, at about 1400 hours an off duty security forces member (MAHAFFY) telephoned Security Forces Control Center (SFCC) to report that he witnessed two individuals drinking alcohol inside a vehicle [describing the Crowley and Stoner vehicle]…. Defendants cannot simply assert: they do not like these facts; defendants must provide some evidence to materially dispute them so as to call for an evidentiary hearing. Indeed, the suppression motion is over if only the facts asserted in the Trojanowski declaration are considered by the court.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.