United States v. Tyler Ehrman ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10145
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:21-cr-00204-VC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TYLER AARON EHRMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Tyler A. Ehrman appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found
during the search of his backpack. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
*
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).
This court reviews a denial of a motion to suppress de novo, United States v.
Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 2007), and can affirm on any ground
supported by the record, United States v. Valencia-Amezcua, 278 F.3d 901, 906 &
n.2 (9th Cir. 2002).
Ehrman moved to suppress evidence resulting from a search of his backpack
on the basis that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Ehrman abandoned his
backpack prior to its search but claims he did so involuntarily. If Ehrman voluntarily
abandoned his backpack, he lacks standing to challenge the admissibility of evidence
found in the backpack. United States v. Fisher, 56 F.4th 673, 686 (9th Cir. 2022)
(“[P]ersons who voluntarily abandon property lack standing to complain of its search
or seizure.” (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d
1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1986))).
To determine whether Ehrman voluntarily abandoned his backpack, we must
determine if Ehrman had been seized by the police at the time of the abandonment
and, if so, whether the seizure was lawful. Washington, 490 F.3d at 769–74
(analyzing first whether a defendant was seized and second whether the seizure was
lawful). We need not reach the second question if there was no seizure. A person is
seized under the Fourth Amendment “when there is a governmental termination of
freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.” United States v. Al
Nasser, 555 F.3d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Brower v.
2 22-10145
County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596–97 (1989)). Freedom of movement is terminated
when, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable
person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” United States v.
McClendon, 713 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.
Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)).
Here, Ehrman dropped his backpack when Deputy Chaloner shined his patrol
car’s spotlight on Ehrman, but then Ehrman continued to walk away. There is no
evidence that Ehrman believed he was not free to leave and, in fact, his decision to
continue walking implies he thought he was free to leave. Accordingly, Ehrman was
not seized at the time he abandoned his backpack and, therefore, the abandonment
was voluntary. See McClendon, 713 F.3d at 1215–16 (finding no seizure where
defendant’s “act of walking away . . . showed a failure to submit to the authority of
the police”); Al Nasser, 555 F.3d at 728–31 (finding that the objective circumstances
did not amount to a seizure).
Because we conclude in response to the first question that Ehrman voluntarily
abandoned his backpack, we need not reach the second question.
AFFIRMED.
3 22-10145