UNITED STATES v. GAGE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-19No. No. 20-30129

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding both that Gage abandoned his privacy expectation in the backpack and that, alternatively, the automobile exception authorized the warrantless search.

Christopher Gage was convicted of possessing sexually explicit images of minors. On appeal, Gage challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained when Officer Robinson searched a backpack without a warrant. The appellate court upheld the denial on two independent grounds. First, the court found that Gage had abandoned any expectation of privacy in the backpack by telling the officer that the group had just retrieved it from a garbage dump and that he had never opened it and did not know its contents. Second, even assuming Gage retained a privacy interest, the warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment because the officer had probable cause to believe the backpack contained contraband based on drug paraphernalia observed nearby and in the backpack's exterior pocket.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether defendant abandoned reasonable expectation of privacy in backpack retrieved from garbage dump
Whether automobile exception to Fourth Amendment justified warrantless search of backpack
Whether officer had probable cause to search based on observed drug paraphernalia

Procedural posture

Gage appealed his conviction for possession of sexually explicit images of minors, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Gage appeals his conviction for possession of sexually explicit images of minors. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

The district court did not err in denying Gages motion to suppress evidence found in Officer Robinsons warrantless search of the backpack.

First, the court did not clearly err in finding that Gage had abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpack by telling Officer Robinson that the group had just retrieved the backpack from a garbage dump and that he had never opened the backpack and had no idea what it contained. See United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 808–09 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Decoud, 456 F.3d 996, 1007–08 (9th Cir. 2006).

Second, even if Gage had not abandoned his expectation of privacy in the backpack, the district court correctly concluded that the search fell within the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. See generally Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300–07, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) (discussing warrantless searches of containers found within automobiles); California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579–80, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) (same). Officer Robinson had probable cause to believe the backpack contained contraband based upon his observation of numerous pieces of suspected drug paraphernalia scattered in the area near the vehicle and visible in an outside pocket of the backpack itself. See generally United States v. King, 985 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2021) (discussing probable cause); Blight v. City of Manteca, 944 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2019) (same).

AFFIRMED.