United States v. Quentin Ferebee
957 F.3d 406
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- Quentin Ferebee was visiting Shana Dunbar (on probation) in her Charlotte home; a black backpack sat against the sofa where he was sitting with a marijuana blunt.
- Probation officers entered without a warrant under Dunbar’s probation terms. Officer Bensavage asked Ferebee to stand; Ferebee picked up the backpack with his left hand and (to Bensavage) said the bag was not his.
- Officer B. Sinnott patted down and arrested Ferebee for marijuana; Ferebee was handcuffed and led outside while the front door remained open.
- Detective Grosse (who did not hear Ferebee’s denial of ownership) searched the backpack less than a minute later and found Ferebee’s ID, a handgun, marijuana, and paraphernalia; Ferebee later admitted ownership at the station.
- Ferebee moved to suppress the backpack evidence and his statements; the district court denied the motion (finding abandonment and alternatively search incident to arrest and inevitable-discovery), and Ferebee pleaded guilty reserving appeal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed (majority: Traxler; dissent: Floyd).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Abandonment of backpack | Ferebee: his later physical possession and single denial do not show abandonment; he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy | Government: Ferebee disavowed ownership (to Bensavage), which objectively abandoned any privacy interest | Court: Abandonment occurred when Ferebee unequivocally disclaimed ownership to Bensavage; he lacked standing to challenge the search |
| Collective-knowledge doctrine | Ferebee: cannot attribute Bensavage’s knowledge (disavowal) to Grosse because Grosse did not hear it | Government: doctrine inapplicable; abandonment hinges on defendant’s intent, not officers’ shared knowledge | Court: Collective-knowledge irrelevant to abandonment; defendant’s disavowal extinguished his privacy interest regardless of which officer heard it |
| Search-incident-to-arrest (post-Gant) | Ferebee: he was handcuffed and outside the house when Grosse searched the bag inside, so under Gant search was improper | Government: despite handcuffs, facts (open door, short distance, officers not controlling him) made it reasonable to believe Ferebee could access the bag | Court: Even assuming Gant applies outside vehicles, facts gave an objectively reasonable possibility that a handcuffed Ferebee could access the backpack, so the search was valid as incident to arrest |
| Inevitable-discovery / burden of proof | Ferebee: district court relied on inevitable-discovery sua sponte and government did not prove it | Government: (did not meaningfully press inevitable-discovery below) | Court: Majority did not rely on inevitable-discovery for the affirmance; dissent criticized district court for invoking it without government proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; standing depends on legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (standing/expectation-of-privacy inquiry distinct from warrant requirement)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search-incident-to-arrest: area within immediate control)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (vehicle-search rule: post-arrest vehicle search valid only when arrestee unsecured and within reaching distance or evidence of the offense likely inside)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to custodial arrest doctrine)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105 (disclaimer of ownership constitutes abandonment)
- United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537 (denial of ownership is abandonment)
- United States v. Small, 944 F.3d 490 (intent to abandon may be inferred from words and acts)