U.S. v. Carlisle

In prosecution on drug distribution charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from bag defendant was carrying while attempting to flee home that was subject of on-going drug raid. Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant during drug raid and conduct pat-down search due to defendant’s conduct in fleeing area during narcotics sweep. Moreover, defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of bag to challenge its search where: (1) defendant’s testimony indicated that he did not own bag, know what was in bag or know who was using bag immediately prior to possession of it; and (2) there was no testimony that defendant had any subjective expectation that bag would remain free from governmental invasion.