Facts
On December 3, 2020, San Antonio Police Department Officers David Below and James Van Kirk responded to a report of a “black male in a red pickup truck” pointing a firearm at another male at the M&M Mart, a gas station. When the officers arrived, they saw a black male sitting in the driver’s seat of a red truck parked in front of the M&M Mart and facing the street. The male got out of the truck and ran, leaving the truck’s door open. After an unsuccessful chase, the officers returned to the scene and found the truck unlocked with the door now closed but the window rolled down.
Officer Below searched the truck and found a cell phone under the truck’s center console. He picked up the unlocked phone and opened the Facebook application, which was logged in as “Asia Tsatenawa.” He recognized Tsatenawa as a convicted felon known as one of the “two big time” narcotics dealers in the area. Officer Below said to Officer Van Kirk, “It’s Asia . . . It’s his Facebook.” Officer Van Kirk did not participate in the search, however, informing Officer Below that they had “no authority” to check the unsecured truck. Officer Below asked some bystanders for Tsatenawa’s location and the truck’s owner. A woman named T. Jackson informed the officers that the truck belonged to Tsatenawa’s brother; she had the keys to the truck in her hand. Officer Below asked for the keys and she gave them to him. She later returned and told Officer Below she had Tsatenawa’s brother on the phone, and the brother confirmed that he lent Tsatenawa the truck.
The officers were about to leave the scene when their supervisor instructed them to have the truck towed because, although it was parked in front of the M&M Mart, it was blocking the public sidewalk. An inventory search of the truck prior to towing revealed a loaded firearm—a “Century Arms AK 47 style, 7.62x39mm pistol”—underneath a sweatshirt that was within arm’s reach of the driver’s seat. Based on information he gathered personally and received from other law enforcement agencies and sources of information, Special Agent Chris Beach with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) submitted an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint charging Tsatenawa with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Officers found Tsatenawa on December 8, 2025, as he was leaving his apartment and entering his car. He attempted to run but officers caught and arrested him. A search of Tsatenawa’s car yielded marijuana and cocaine. Because the officers believed that Tsatenawa has additional narcotics in his apartment based on his answers to the officer’s questions, they sought and obtained a search warrant for the apartment, where they recovered pistols, digital scales with narcotics residue, plastic baggies, and a “large amount” of cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, and pills. The aggregate weight of all recovered narcotics was 323 grams of cocaine (including crack cocaine), 438 grams of marijuana, and 39 grams of unidentified pills.
Tsatenawa was charged in a five-count indictment with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He moved to suppress all evidence (including the pistols and drugs) seized in connection with this cause. He argued that (1) the search of his brother’s truck and his phone at the M&M Mart was unlawful. The Government responded that Tsatenawa lacked standing to challenge the searches of the truck and his phone because he abandoned them, so he lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy.
The district court denied the motion, concluding that Tsatenawa had abandoned the truck at the M&M Mart and therefore lacked standing to challenge its search. The 5th affirmed.
Search of truck
Tsatenawa first contends that officers lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the truck and his phone and that no exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. He argues that there is no support for the district court’s conclusion that he abandoned the truck. A defendant who abandons property before it is searched forfeits that expectation of privacy. See Wise and Iraheta (A defendant who abandons property prior to the search does not have standing to challenge a search subsequent to his abandonment).
Abandonment is primarily a question of intent, which may be inferred from all relevant circumstances existing at the time. It must be voluntary, meaning it cannot be influenced by improper police conduct. The legal presence of police officers for investigatory purposes does not render an abandonment involuntary, however. We have found abandonment when a defendant has, while being pursued by law enforcement, discarded an item in a location that is easily accessible to the public. See United States v. Edwards, 441 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1971) (car left near a ditch after police pursuit of the driver was abandoned); Self (phone left inside a car in hotel parking lot after the defendant fled the scene upon sight of the officers was abandoned); United States v. Williams, 569 F2d 823 (5th Cir. 1978) (unhooked trailer left at a rest stop on suspicion that officers were following the defendant was abandoned).
Here, Tsatenawa got out of the truck and ran when Officers Below and Van Kirk arrived at the M&M Mart. He left the unlocked truck with the door open and the window down parked at a gas station in a manner that blocked a public sidewalk. Considering all relevant circumstances, Tsatenawa no longer had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle and its contents.
Because Tsatenawa lacks standing under the Fourth Amendment to challenge either the search of the abandoned truck or his phone, he has not shown that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the truck or his phone.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-50034.0.pdf