805 F.3d 935
10th Cir.2015Background
- Hill boarded an Amtrak train in Los Angeles and placed an untagged Coogi suitcase in the coach’s common luggage area.
- At the Albuquerque stop, DEA Agent Kevin Small boarded the train to conduct drug-interdiction checks and found the untagged Coogi bag in the common storage area.
- Small removed the bag from the storage area, carried it down the aisle while asking passengers if it belonged to them, and, after everyone denied ownership, searched it and found cocaine and clothing linking Hill to the bag.
- Hill moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing Small’s removal and carriage of the bag constituted an unlawful seizure that rendered any subsequent abandonment involuntary; the district court denied the motion and Hill conditionally pleaded guilty to preserve the appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit framed the narrow legal question as whether Small’s conduct amounted to a Fourth Amendment seizure of the luggage and reviewed that question de novo because the facts were undisputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agent Small’s removal and transport of the unattended Coogi bag from the coach’s common luggage area constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | Hill: taking the bag into agent’s control and moving it was a meaningful interference with possessory interests, so it was a seizure making abandonment involuntary | Gov’t: there was no seizure; alternatively, lack of a baggage tag diminished Hill’s possessory interest (argument not preserved below) | Court: Yes. Agent’s dominion and control over the bag while seeking its owner meaningfully interfered with Hill’s possessory interest and therefore was a seizure without reasonable suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (defines property "seizure" as meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (detention of luggage beyond brief investigative stop requires probable cause)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (protections for luggage as "effects")
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (seizure clause protects possessory interests distinct from search clause)
- United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes checked-baggage brief detentions from seizures of property in traveler’s possession)
- United States v. Scales, 903 F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1990) (taking luggage from direct possession constitutes seizure)
- United States v. Nicholson, 144 F.3d 632 (10th Cir. 1998) (analyzes expectations in luggage handling for search/seizure questions)
- United States v. Johnson, 584 F.3d 995 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Hernandez, 7 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 1993) (abandonment is not voluntary if resulting from a Fourth Amendment violation)