context: . Even if the disclaimer was not tainted, Nikzad contends that he nevertheless retained a privacy interest in the briefcase's contents because the briefcase itself was located within a closed container under his ownership and control.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: despite defendant's disclaimer of ownership, he retained a privacy interest in journals found inside his locked safe
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Issacs, 708 F.2d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 165, 78 L.Ed.2d 150 (1983) (despite defendant’s disclaimer of ownership, he retained a privacy interest in journals found inside his locked safe); United States v. Portillo, 633 F.2d 1313, 1316-17 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1043, 101 S.Ct. 1763, 68 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981) (despite disclaimer of ownership, defendant maintained a privacy interest in the contents of two paper bags found in the locked trunk of a car under his control).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 647 F.2d 999, 999
citation_b.parenthetical: defendant abandoned his privacy interest by disclaiming ownership of a wallet found in passenger section of his automobile
citation_b.sentence: But see United States v. Veatch, 647 F.2d at 999 (defendant abandoned his privacy interest by disclaiming ownership of a wallet found in passenger section of his automobile).