Opinion
June 28, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.).
Defendant and codefendant were caught bringing a kilogram of cocaine to New York from Miami. They were stopped after deplaning at LaGuardia Airport pursuant to a tip from a confidential informant and subsequent confirmatory observations by undercover officers. Although defendant and codefendant consented to a search of their carry-on bags, they both disclaimed ownership or interest in a black and tan folding bag bearing codefendant's name that defendant had pointed out and codefendant had taken from the conveyor belt. Permission was then obtained from the airline official to search the bag. Inside was a kilogram of cocaine wrapped in tape, a .357 magnum and ammunition hidden in a sock inside a shearing kit, and some women's clothes. A later inventory revealed defendant's telephone book and identification.
After a hearing, the court properly denied her motion to suppress the physical evidence (see, People v. Castro, 137 Misc.2d 694). Because she declined ownership interest in the bag containing the contraband, she had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the property. (Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128; People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 355-356.) Defendant contends she has a possessory interest in the bag because it contained her clothing, telephone book and identification. However, mere placement of personal possessions inside the property of another, without more, does not give a legitimate expectation of privacy (Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98; People v. Buckley, 81 A.D.2d 511). Nor were there circumstances showing a particular relationship between the traveling companions or of any precautions taken by them in locking the bag which would indicate an expectation of privacy (United States v. Rodriguez-Ramos, 704 F.2d 17, 21, cert denied 463 U.S. 1209).
Further, defendant had abandoned the bag by disclaiming ownership, and abandoned property is not protected against unreasonable search and seizures (Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217; People v. Pittman, 14 N.Y.2d 885). Abandonment is a question of intent shown with or without a verbal renunciation of ownership (United States v. Cowan, 396 F.2d 83, 87; People v Bergerson, 105 A.D.2d 867). Nor does police pursuit or the existence of a police investigation or questioning of itself render abandonment involuntary (United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174, 176; People v. Chitty, 40 Misc.2d 580, 581-582).
Defendant also contends that her sentence was excessive. However, because it was the result of a negotiated plea bargain, it should not be disturbed (People v. Francis, 38 N.Y.2d 150, 155-156).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.