Abandoned property loses Fourth Amendment protection when a suspect’s actions indicate they have given up a reasonable expectation of privacy. In United States v. Lodge, the 4th Circuit examined whether a fleeing suspect abandoned a backpack containing drugs after unsuccessfully trying to pass it into a relative’s home. The ruling highlights how courts evaluate abandonment through objective behavior, flight, and efforts to distance oneself from incriminating property.
United States v. Lodge, 2026 WL 1172441 (4th Cir. 2026)
In United States v. Lodge, the court gives officers a practical reminder about a simple but often misunderstood concept: You don’t get Fourth Amendment protection for property you’ve abandoned — even if you still wish you hadn’t.
Around 3:00 a.m. in Clarksburg, West Virginia, police attempted to stop a Nissan sedan for a traffic violation. The driver, Austin Lodge, fled from the traffic stop, ran to a trailer home, and tried to push his backpack inside. The homeowner — his children’s grandmother — cracked the door and then shut it. No entry, no handoff, conversation over.
At that moment, the legal situation clarified quickly, though Lodge himself may have been confused about his options. He could keep the bag or separate himself from it. Lodge chose separation. Running to the back of the property, he dumped the backpack near a shed before continuing his flight. Officers later found the bag and searched it without a warrant. It contained drugs.
“The Fourth Amendment doesn’t turn on personal history or hopeful intentions. It turns on objective conduct.”
At trial, Lodge argued the bag wasn’t abandoned — just concealed on property where he had a connection. He also argued the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and any evidence obtained from it should be suppressed. But the Fourth Amendment doesn’t turn on personal history or hopeful intentions. It turns on objective conduct. Abandonment isn’t about who owns the property. It’s about whether the person has given up a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Courts don’t ask what the suspect meant to do later — they look at what he did in the moment.
And here, Lodge’s conduct spoke plainly. He fled. He tried to hand the bag off, but was refused. He discarded it anyway.
From the officer’s perspective, that looks like someone trying to distance himself from incriminating evidence — not someone safeguarding personal effects. The court emphasized an important point: Abandonment is not inferred from flight alone — but from flight viewed in context, including where and how the property is discarded.
Lodge’s actions didn’t demonstrate careful concealment. There was no entrusting the bag to another person, no effort to secure it, no indication anyone would protect it. Just a failed attempt to pass it off and a quick discard when that didn’t work.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Officers should also note that property dumped on private land does not automatically preserve Fourth Amendment protection. Location matters — but it’s not decisive. A backyard is not a constitutional safe harbor if the suspect’s actions show he’s abandoning the item.
Bottom line: You can’t claim privacy in something you’ve just tried to get rid of. And practically speaking, if the door gets slammed in your face and the bag stays outside with you, that’s usually not a strong foundation for a later Fourth Amendment claim.
- Blog Articles
- Blog Articles
