United States v. Davit Ghazaryan, 685 F. App'x 222

Background

Ghazaryan was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and access device fraud; he appealed the denial of pretrial motions to suppress evidence found on his person and in a van he occupied.
Police responded to a tip describing suspicious activity at banks and provided a detailed description and location of a van; officers found a van matching that description and two occupants including Ghazaryan.
Officers approached, questioned Ghazaryan about visiting banks and his presence in the area, and opened the van’s sliding door for safety; another officer discovered a plastic bag containing cut-up credit cards and shredded papers behind the passenger seat.
The district court found Ghazaryan lacked the owner’s permission to use the van (i.e., was illegitimately in possession) and thus had only limited standing to challenge the van search; Ghazaryan retained standing to challenge his stop and arrest.
The district court denied suppression; the Fourth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge search of van	Ghazaryan argued he had expectation of privacy in the van and its contents	Government argued he lacked permission to use the van and thus no legitimate expectation of privacy	Court held Ghazaryan was illegitimately in possession, so no expectation of privacy in the van or its containers; limited standing preserved only for stop/arrest challenges
Reasonable suspicion for detention	Ghazaryan argued police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him	Government argued corroborated tip, matching van and occupants, and officer beliefs provided reasonable suspicion	Court held totality of circumstances (reliable tip, corroboration, untruthful answers) gave reasonable suspicion to detain
Whether stop became unlawful arrest	Ghazaryan argued the stop became a prolonged arrest lacking probable cause due to a protracted investigation	Government argued officers diligently pursued the investigation and acted within scope and duration allowed	Court held the officer’s investigation was diligent and did not transform into an unlawful arrest; probable cause arose when bag was discovered
Seizure of plastic bag (plain view)	Ghazaryan contended the bag seizure from the van was unconstitutional	Government argued Ghazaryan lacked standing and the bag was seen after opening the door for safety; contents were immediately apparent evidence	Court held he lacked standing to challenge van search and, additionally, the bag was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine because officer had cause to believe contents were evidence of a crime

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Clarke, 842 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Palmer, 820 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2016) (deference to district court credibility findings)
United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868 (4th Cir. 1992) (permission to use vehicle and expectation of privacy principles)
United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411 (4th Cir. 1981) (occupant of stolen vehicle lacks expectation of privacy)
United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 1994) (privacy in vehicle containers)
United States v. Dickerson, 655 F.2d 559 (4th Cir. 1981) (burden to rebut possession evidence)
United States v. Foster, 824 F.3d 84 (4th Cir. 2016) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
United States v. Torres, 534 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2008) (reliability of identified-tip versus anonymous tip)
United States v. Elston, 479 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2007) (factors indicating tip reliability)
United States v. Lee, 317 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) (reasonable suspicion in similar bank-fraud stop scenario)
United States v. White, 836 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (scope and duration limits on investigative stops)
United States v. Stanfield, 109 F.3d 976 (4th Cir. 1997) (opening vehicle doors for officer safety)
United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2012) (plain view exception description)
United States v. Rodriguez, 601 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2010) (probable cause for immediately apparent plain-view evidence)