United States v. Van Dam

Citation: 37 F. App'x 461Docket: No. 01-4146

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; June 11, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A conditional plea of guilty was entered by defendant Brian Lee Van Dam for possession of a firearm by a restricted person under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), and he subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. During a patrol on September 7, 2000, Deputy Nathan Harris noticed Van Dam and a woman near a Mercedes with expired Florida license plates. After engaging with them, inconsistencies arose regarding their identities and car ownership. Deputy Carry Knighton performed a Terry frisk due to these discrepancies, discovering a baggie resembling methamphetamine in one of Van Dam's wallets. When arrested, Van Dam fled, prompting officers to impound the vehicle. An inventory search revealed a briefcase containing a loaded handgun and materials linking Van Dam to the vehicle. The district court denied the suppression motion, ruling that the briefcase's contents would have been found through lawful means due to the valid impoundment of the Mercedes, which was justified to protect the owner's interests and the sheriff’s office from claims.

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search. When reviewing the district court's denial, factual findings are accepted unless there is clear error, while the determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo. The defendant argues that the search of his wallet was improper and that the evidence obtained should be suppressed as it was a result of an unlawful search. He claims that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry frisk, asserting that they did not have grounds to believe he was armed and dangerous. 

The court notes that the wallet was discovered during a Terry search, which is governed by the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court applies a two-part inquiry to assess the reasonableness of the search: first, whether the officer's actions were justified at the outset, and second, whether the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial interference. However, the court concludes that the search was lawful because the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time of the search. Under established precedent, searches incident to lawful arrests can occur even before the arrest, provided that the arrest follows shortly thereafter. 

The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches when they are incident to a lawful arrest, which can include searches for evidence of a crime, not just pat-downs for weapons. Probable cause is assessed based on an objective standard, and an officer's subjective belief regarding the existence of probable cause does not negate the government's ability to establish it. In this case, the officers had probable cause to believe the defendant had provided a false name to mislead them about his identity, which constitutes a class C misdemeanor under Utah law. Consequently, the officers were authorized to arrest him for this offense, thereby justifying the search of his wallet.

Lastly, the defendant contends that the opening of a briefcase during an inventory search related to the impounding of his vehicle was improper. He claims the government did not demonstrate that it had specific policies governing the opening of closed containers during such searches, which it must establish to validate the inventory search.

The government argues that the defendant lacks standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim regarding the search of a briefcase he abandoned while fleeing from arrest. The district court did not make findings on the issue of abandonment, but the appellate court can affirm the denial of the motion to suppress based on any reasonable view of the evidence. The court can evaluate abandonment despite the lack of district court findings. The legal standard for abandonment considers whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the object. The analysis involves determining both a subjective expectation of privacy and an objectively reasonable expectation recognized by society.

It is undisputed that the defendant fled after being informed of his arrest, leaving the briefcase in a car he did not claim ownership of. He did not attempt to secure the briefcase from inspection. Although fleeing from police does not automatically render abandonment involuntary, the defendant expressed no intent to retain ownership of the briefcase, leading to a conclusion of voluntary abandonment. Even if he subjectively believed he retained an expectation of privacy, it was not objectively reasonable since the briefcase was left in a vehicle not owned by him, and there was no assurance that his companion would deny police access to it. Consequently, the defendant abandoned the briefcase and lacks standing to contest its search. The appellate court's decision is affirmed, with the note that the order is not binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines, and citation is generally discouraged but allowed under certain conditions.