United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Troy Lee Price, Defendant-appellant, 19 F.3d 1442 (9th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CaseBefore: BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Upon independent review of the facts, see United States v. Kendall, 655 F.2d 199, 203 (9th Cir. 1981), we hold the district court did not clearly err in finding Price abandoned his luggage. Compare United States v. Mulder, 808 F.2d 1346, 1348 (9th Cir. 1987) (no clear error in finding luggage was not abandoned when left in a room for which defendant paid and where defendant left without knowledge of police inquiry). Because a person who abandons property lacks standing to challenge its search, United States v. Huffhines, 967 F.2d 314, 318 (9th Cir. 1992), the denial of Price's suppression motion is
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or for the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.