CA10: Def’s response ‘I don’t have a backpack’ was abandonment of the backpack

“Mr. Porter nonetheless attempts to distinguish this case from our other abandonment cases, claiming that in those cases, the defendant’s denial of ownership was clear and unequivocal. But it is hard to imagine a statement plainer than ‘I don’t have a backpack.’ The statement is clearer still when viewed in conjunction with the fact that Detective Lopez saw Mr. Porter walk into the job site with a backpack. That ambiguity might be read into a statement does not mean it should. And certainly, plausible ambiguity does not yield clear error.” United States v. Porter, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10634 (10th Cir. May 2, 2023).*

Regions Bank responding to an order of seizure of an account, wasn’t state action for suing it under the Fourth Amendment and § 1983. Ellis-Erkkila v. Citibank, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75017 (W.D. Tex. May 1, 2023).*

This started off with a legitimate private search, and neither Franks requirement is met to get a hearing. United States v. Tatum, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75482 (W.D.N.C. May 1, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Private search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.