On July 31, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Rahmings[i], in which the court examined whether the defendant abandoned a backpack in a residence as he was fleeing the police. The relevant facts of Rahmings are as follows:
In October 2020, Rahmings was wanted under several felony arrest warrants for a shooting incident. Rahmings had been seen at a friend’s house in Tampa, Florida, so law enforcement officials set up surveillance there hoping to catch and arrest him. Not long after, Rahmings showed up carrying a white backpack with a University of South Florida (“USF”) logo and the number 81 embroidered on it.
The police activated their emergency lights and approached him. Rahmings fled into the house. The officers chased him inside. Within a minute or two, Rahmings emerged from a bedroom with his hands up. Rahmings was no longer wearing the backpack.
After arresting him, the police obtained the homeowner’s permission to conduct a protective sweep of the home. The homeowner specifically said that she did not want guns in the house because she had young children. During the sweep, the police found the USF backpack in the hallway about 10 to 15 feet away from where Rahmings had emerged just before his arrest. They found a handgun in the backpack.
Outside the house, the homeowner asked Rahmings if he had left anything inside her house. Rahmings did not respond. A sergeant then asked Rahmings if a white iPhone found in the house was his, and he confirmed that it was.[ii]
Rahmings was subsequently indicted under federal law for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a motion to suppress the gun, arguing that the warrantless search of the residence and his backpack violated the Fourth Amendment. The government argued that Rahmings abandoned the backpack in the residence, which was not his residence, although he did frequent the residence. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Rahmings was convicted. He subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The issue on appeal was whether Rahmings abandoned the backpack and, as such, his reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the pack.
It is important to note that whether the backpack was abandoned is a question of fact, and the court of appeals will only reverse a finding of fact if it is “clearly erroneous,” which means the court has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”[iii]
The court of appeals then examined the legal principles relevant to abandonment and stated
[A] person can abandon property and, with it, their reasonable expectation of privacy in that property. United States v. McKennon, 814 F.2d 1539, 1545 (11th Cir. 1987). The government bears the burden of proving abandonment. Ramos, 12 F.3d at 1023. And “[d]etermining whether an abandonment has occurred requires a consideration of case-specific facts[.]” Id. at 1025. “[T]he critical inquiry is whether the person prejudiced by the search . . . voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in the property[.]” Id. at 1022
The court then examined the facts that the district court used to determine that Rahmings had abandoned his backpack. The facts relied upon by the district court to find abandonment were as follows: (1) Rahmings’ flight from the police showed an attempt to separate himself from incriminating evidence; (2) the house was not Rahmings residence; (3) the house was known as a “hot-spot” of gang activity; (4) the backpack was located in a part of the hallway that Rahmings “must have passed” to “enter the bedroom from which he emerged” when he surrendered to police; (5) the homeowner did not give him permission to store his backpack in the hallway, and she asked him if he left anything in her residence; and (6) Rahmings was silent when he was asked if he left anything in the residence but then, in contrast, answered affirmatively when asked if the I-phone found in the house belonged to him. The court of appeals then stated
Those findings are more than enough to show abandonment. By voluntarily ridding himself of the backpack to distance himself from incriminating evidence, Rahmings showed an intent to voluntarily relinquish or discard any interest in the property. See United States v. Williams, 569 F.2d 823, 826 (5th Cir. 1978) That inference is only strengthened by the facts showing that Rahmings jettisoned the backpack in the hallway of a home that was not his own, where the guns he brought were not welcome, only for Rahmings to later decline an opportunity to stake a claim to the backpack after it was seized. See United States v. Cofield, 272 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that a defendant abandoned luggage when he left the bags on the ground in a train station, walked away from them, and denied that the bags belonged to him). [iv]
Rahmings argued that the Supreme Court case, Smith v. Ohio,[v] supported his position that he did not abandon his backpack. However, in Smith, the defendant, upon being approached by the police, threw his backpack on the hood of his own car and turned to face the officers. The Supreme Court held that Smith did not abandon his backpack, rather he was trying to prevent the inspection of his private property. However, the Eleventh Circuit distinguished Smith from Rahming’s case because
Rahmings jettisoned the backpack out of his personal vicinity, in someone else’s home, and declined to stake a claim to the bag once it was seized.[vi]
The court of appeals also noted that just because Rahmings had a subjective hope that he would be able to reclaim his backpack, does not change the fact that he abandoned it as it pertains to the Fourth Amendment. The court stated
It does not matter whether Rahmings subjectively hoped to reclaim the backpack later. Williams, 569 F.2d at 826 (finding abandonment even when the defendant “retained a hope that he might accomplish two objects: the protection of himself from possession of evidence while he was pursued, and the chance of recovery of the trailer if neither the officers nor anyone else took it.”).[vii]
Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
__________________________________________
Citations
[i] No. 23-12931 (11th Cir. July 31, 2024 Unpublished)
[ii] Id. at 1-2
[iii] Id. at 4
[iv] Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added)
[v] 494 U.S. 541 (1990)
[vi] Rahmings at 8 (emphasis added)
[vii] Id. at 7 (emphasis added)
