Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ‘s ruling that an Indianapolis man’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when police searched his vehicle for narcotics and other contraband in connection with an investigation.
The defendant in the case, Dylan Ostrum, was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute marijuana and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a search of the vehicle he was using found evidence to support the charges.
He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Ostrum became linked to an investigation into another Indianapolis man involved in drug dealing.
While investigating the other man, police found text messages between him and Ostrum showing the two often sold each other marijuana and methamphetamine, according to court documents.
During a search warrant of Ostrum’s home, police found little evidence of narcotics and firearms.
Ostrum said he took everything to his father’s house in Pendleton, including his car and missing safes, documents state.
Police soon found the car parked in a nearby driveway and, upon searching, found the missing safes, which contained narcotics and a loaded pistol.
A search of the car’s Vehicle Identification Number showed a rental company had reported it stolen months before.
Before his trial, Ostrum moved to suppress evidence found in the vehicle because it was “fruit of an illegal search.”
The Indiana Southern District Court denied his motion, finding 1) Ostrum couldn’t challenge the search because the car was stolen, 2) the search was valid under the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception because police had probable cause to believe it contained contraband and 3) the search was permitted as an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle.
The questions on appeal for the circuit court were whether Ostrum could challenge the search of the stolen car and, if so, whether the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The 7th Circuit answered no to both questions, upholding the district court’s ruling that Ostrum did not meet his burden on standing and that existing probable cause justified the search of the car under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Because Ostrum was driving a stolen car and didn’t prove he didn’t know the car was stolen, he had no reasonable expectation for privacy, and therefore couldn’t claim the search of the car was unconstitutional, court documents state.
Further, since the safes were found inside a stolen vehicle, Ostrum had no expectation of privacy in them, either, according to the circuit court.
The Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception allows law enforcement to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle as long as there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence. This extends to all containers inside the vehicle where probable cause believes contraband could be found (the safes).
The evidence that led police to lawfully search Ostrum’s home, combined with his statements during the search, gave them probable cause to search the vehicle.
“Under the totality of circumstances—which here includes the evidence of Ostrum’s past narcotics dealing and firearm possession, his statements to law enforcement, and the officers’ experience—there was ample probable cause to believe the Chrysler contained contraband. The searches of the Chrysler and safes thus safely fall within the automobile exception,” the 7th Circuit stated in its opinion.
The case is USA v. Dylan Ostrum, 23-1364.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.