United States v. Lowe

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2024 · Evidence

EvidenceFourth AmendmentSuppressionSufficiency of the EvidenceSentencingFourth Amendmentstandinglegitimate expectation of privacy

Facts

While Lowe was on supervised release, officers received information that he was using a storage unit in his apartment building to hide narcotics and firearms. Building management confirmed Lowe did not rent a storage unit, and the manager stated vacant units should not be accessed unless someone was paying for them; at officers' request, the manager consented to cutting the padlock and searching an eighth-floor unit. Inside, officers found a loaded Kahr handgun, MDMA, Xanax pills, ammunition, scales, baggies, and documents tied to Lowe. Lowe had twice denied to his probation officer that he had a storage unit, and while jailed he made calls referring to retrieving valuables and asking about a two-toned firearm matching the Kahr.

Issue

Did Lowe have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment-building storage unit or suitcase sufficient to challenge the warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment? Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury's finding that he possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime? Did the court err in sentencing, and could the court remand under Amendment 821 on direct appeal?

Rule

A defendant seeking suppression must show his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. Even assuming a subjective expectation, society is generally not prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable an expectation arising from unauthorized, fraudulent, or otherwise wrongful possession or use of property, and mere physical control is not enough without evidence of lawful possession or permission. For § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), the government must prove a drug trafficking crime, possession of a firearm, and that the firearm furthered, promoted, or advanced the drug trafficking crime by showing a nexus between the gun and the trafficking activity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Flores lived in a Phoenix apartment complex with basement storage cages available only to tenants who paid a monthly fee. Building records showed Nina rented no cage, and the manager said vacant cages were off-limits unless assigned. After the manager authorized entry into an unassigned cage that Nina had been using, officers found narcotics and a locked duffel bag; Nina moved to suppress but offered no evidence that she had permission to use the cage or that the duffel bag was hers.

Is Nina most likely entitled to suppression of the evidence from the cage and duffel bag?

Explanation. A defendant bears the burden to show a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. Under the majority's reasoning, unauthorized use of property generally is not one society recognizes as objectively reasonable, and mere physical control is insufficient without evidence of lawful possession, permission, or another legitimate basis. Nina offered none as to either the cage or the duffel bag, so suppression should fail. (Derived from United States v. Lowe (n.d.).)