Invalid Search-Fourth Amendment

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Dylan Ostrum

Case No.: 23-1364

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Ripple and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Invalid Search-Fourth Amendment

Dylan Ostrum was being investigated for alleged drug dealing and possession of firearms. During a search of his residence, Ostrum disclosed that he had relocated his belongings, including his car, to his father’s residence. However, the car, reported as stolen by a rental company, was discovered nearby containing Ostrum’s possessions, including a firearm, methamphetamine, and marijuana, all secured in two safes. The primary issues under appeal were whether Ostrum had the legal standing to contest the search of the stolen vehicle and whether this search breached his Fourth Amendment rights.

Ostrum’s investigation commenced subsequent to the discovery of text communications between him and another individual, Ricky Blythe, indicating recurrent transactions involving methamphetamine and marijuana. Supported by this evidence and information provided by confidential sources, law enforcement obtained a valid warrant to search Ostrum’s residence. Nonetheless, the search yielded minimal results, prompting Ostrum to inform the officers about the relocation of his belongings to his father’s residence. Subsequently, law enforcement located the stolen car and uncovered the safes within.

Ostrum faced multiple charges related to drug possession and distribution, as well as unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. He sought to exclude the evidence retrieved from the car, contending that it was the outcome of an unlawful search. The district court dismissed the motion, asserting that Ostrum lacked standing to challenge the search due to the car’s stolen status and that the search fell within the scope of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Ostrum was convicted on all charges and sentenced to 240 months.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit determined that Ostrum had not met the burden of proof regarding standing and that the presence of probable cause validated the search under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The court concluded that Ostrum did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the stolen car or its contents, thus lacking the standing to contest its search.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/25/24

Full Text