{"id":3840,"date":"2011-01-11T17:25:26","date_gmt":"2010-02-12T06:44:43","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-02-12T06:44:43","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3840","title":{"rendered":"AZ: Denying ownership of a duffle bag that fell from a pickup truck was an abandonment"},"content":{"rendered":"

The defendant was the target of a drive-by shooting in Tucson, and he gave chase to the vehicle involved, and stuff \u201cspilled\u201d out of the back of his pickup truck as he gave chase. After the chase was over, he and others were retrieving the stuff, and defendant claimed everything but a duffle bag. This constituted an abandonment. A higher state standard was rejected, which Arizona courts reserve for searches of the home. State v. Huerta<\/a>, 223 Ariz. 424, 224 P.3d 240, 575 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 23 (2010)*:<\/p>\n

P17 Finally, this is not a situation in which the status quo could have been maintained. Any reasonable person would anticipate that the police would not have left the unclaimed bag on the side of the street, but would have taken custody of it and routinely opened and inspected it for indications of ownership as well as safety considerations. By not claiming the duffle bag in these circumstances, Huerta effectively elected the latter option. See Nordling, 804 F.2d at 1470 (bag abandoned when “it was virtually certain” it would be opened, inspected, and given to authorities before defendant could reassert control). From the totality of the circumstances here, we can only conclude Huerta intentionally abandoned the bag and thereby sacrificed any privacy interest he had in it. That being so, the deputy’s search of the bag did not violate Huerta’s constitutional rights, and the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. See Walker, 119 Ariz. at 126-27, 579 P.2d at 1096-97 (no standing to challenge search of abandoned property).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Arrest of the defendant by a Border Patrol agent away from the border was based on citizen\u2019s arrest theory. However, since the defendant\u2019s actions did not amount to a breach of the peace, the citizen\u2019s arrest theory didn\u2019t work, and the search incident to that arrest was invalid. State v. Garcia-Navarro<\/a>, 224 Ariz. 38, 226 P.3d 407, 575 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 39 (Ariz. App. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}