United States v. Cody Nowak
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10956
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Nowak was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and the district court denied his suppression motion after a conditional guilty plea; he was sentenced to 27 months and 2 years of supervised release.
- Officer Vander Velde stopped Madsen's car for expired tags; Nowak, who occupied the front passenger seat, placed a backpack on the floor and then fled the scene when the officer returned to contact dispatch.
- Madsen granted permission to search the car; the backpack was found on the floor and contained a Hi-Point .45 handgun wrapped in a bandana.
- Nowak argued the backpack search violated the Fourth Amendment because it was warrantless and part of a vehicle search, and the district court held Nowak abandoned the backpack, extinguishing his privacy interest.
- On appeal, the court reviewed factual findings for clear error and whether abandonment occurred de novo, ultimately affirming that Nowak abandoned the backpack and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the backpack abandoned, eliminating a Fourth Amendment privacy interest? | Nowak (Nowak) contends he did not abandon the backpack. | Nowak (Nowak) contends the district court erred in finding abandonment. | Yes; the court held Nowak abandoned the backpack. |
| If abandoned, did Madsen's consent to search extend to the backpack? | Nowak maintains no privacy interest remained to extend; consent issue unnecessary if not abandoned. | Consent, if applicable, could have extended to the backpack. | Not reached as abandonment was found; issue unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression relies on clear error and de novo determinations)
- United States v. Stephenson, 924 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1991) (standard of review for suppression decisions)
- United States v. Liu, 180 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 1999) (abandonment analysis focuses on objective facts)
- United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2003) (abandonment can occur even when belongings are entrusted to others)
- United States v. Basinski, 226 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2000) (ownership/privacy not preserved when property is given for safekeeping unless explicit instructions to destroy privacy)
- United States v. Thomas, 451 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2006) (privacy interests may be extinguished where owner fails to preserve them)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (abandonment and seizure analysis tied to objective behavior)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (what a person exposes to the public may not be protected; but personal privacy extends to private expectations)