A person only has the right to object to a police search if she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area or property searched. In a recent Kansas Court of Appeals case, the emphasized if an individual abandons property, she has no right to stop or object to the police searching that property. In State v. Ralston, Ms. Abby Ralston appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine. No. 103,358, slip op. at 2 (Kan. Ct. App. June 10, 2011). At trial, the prosecution presented evidence showing that Ms. Ralston was a backseat passenger in a stolen vehicle. When a police car recognized the stolen car and attempted to make a traffic stop, the car sped away. A pursuit began and continued until the stolen car inadvertently crashed. After the crash, the driver and front-seat passenger fled the car. Ms. Ralston got out from the car and away from the accident. When approached by officers, she did not admit she was a passenger of the car. A subsequent search of the car revealed a purse which provided Ms. Ralston’s identification and also a pouch of meth. At trial, she sought to suppress the drugs found in the purse, but the trial court denied the motion and she was found guilty of possession of meth.
On appeal, Ms. Ralston “argues that the officer should have obtained a warrant prior to searching the vehicle and the contents of the purse and the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Ralston intended to abandon her purse in the vehicle.” Id. at 5. The court begins its analysis by examining whether Ms. Ralston abandoned her purse when she got out of the vehicle and began walking away. If a individual abandons property, he or she has no expectation of privacy in that property and cannot claim that it was unlawfully searched. Id. at 6. Under Kansas law, property will be deemed abandoned if 1) the person intended to abandon the property; and 2) the person’s decision to abandon the property was done freely and not coerced by police misconduct. Id. Here, the court finds Ms. Ralston did abandon her purse in the car. She left the vehicle after an accident that resulted from police pursuit. She walked away from the accident, denied being a passenger in the vehicle, and initially denied owning any property within the crashed car. Id. at 7. As a result of the abandonment, her “expectation of privacy in her purse was not objectively reasonable, and she therefore lacked standing to challenge the search.” The search of her purse was lawful and the seizure of the meth from her purse was lawful.
The court here agrees with the trial court’s decision to admit the drug evidence at trial, and her conviction is affirmed. It is important to understand when you have a right against unreasonable search and seizure by the police. To speak to an attorney experienced in search and seizure law, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.