Suppression in Train Case Reversed; Very Little Expectation of Privacy in Train Roomette

U.S. v. Denny, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 775167 (10th Cir. March 28, 2006)

A wee bit of privacy slippage in train roomettes and property: the 10th reversed J. Parker’s suppression of drug evidence seized from D’s Amtrak sleeper car. DEA check revealed D bought his one way ticket LA to NJ the day before, and that he had a pre-1998 drug conviction, so he was targeted for the welcome treatment. Two issues: Privacy in roomette, privacy in Ritz box inside baggie. D allows agent into roomette to search bags there, but actually limits search of gym bag; agent steps out but sees D take out of bag a Ritz cracker box in a baggie and place it under the cushion; D allows agent back in to search the gym bag but nothing there. Agent asks about Ritz box under the cushion and D says not his. Agent and D step back out so agent can pat-down D. Then agent steps back in and gets the Ritz box which he considers abandoned, finds coke in it. (1) 10th says that agent did not need additional permission to walk back into roomette to retrieve box–no legitimate expectation of privacy at that point. (2) by voicing no ownership interest in Ritz box, D objectively abandoned it (rejecting the nice district court analysis of why it was NOT abandoned).