United States v. Christopher Gage ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30129
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:19-cr-00016-DCN-1
v.
CHRISTOPHER MICHEAL GAGE, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 14, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Gage appeals his conviction for possession of sexually explicit
images of minors. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only
as necessary to explain our decision.
The district court did not err in denying Gage’s motion to suppress evidence
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
found in Officer Robinson’s warrantless search of the backpack.
First, the court did not clearly err in finding that Gage had abandoned any
reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpack by telling Officer Robinson that
the group had just retrieved the backpack from a garbage dump and that he had
never opened the backpack and had no idea what it contained. See United States v.
Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 808–09 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Decoud, 456
F.3d 996, 1007–08 (9th Cir. 2006).
Second, even if Gage had not abandoned his expectation of privacy in the
backpack, the district court correctly concluded that the search fell within the
automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. See generally Wyoming v.
Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300–07 (1999) (discussing warrantless searches of
containers found within automobiles); California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579–
80 (1991) (same). Officer Robinson had probable cause to believe the backpack
contained contraband based upon his observation of numerous pieces of suspected
drug paraphernalia scattered in the area near the vehicle and visible in an outside
pocket of the backpack itself. See generally United States v. King, 985 F.3d 702,
707 (9th Cir. 2021) (discussing probable cause); Blight v. City of Manteca, 944
F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2019) (same).
AFFIRMED.
2