ruling on a motion to suppress, we review its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1572, 188 L.Ed.2d 580 (2014). After carefully reviewing the briefs, record, and legal authorities, we conclude that the district court’s analysis was substantially correct. See United States v. Hopkins, No. 2:11-00178, 2013 WL 125666 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 9, 2013). As did the district court, we conclude that the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop. Moreover, when Hopkins fled from the police, he abandoned the car, thereby forfeiting any privacy interest in the car or its contents. See United States v. Kirlew, 291 Fed.Appx. 536, 538-39 (4th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car holding that a car passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his closed plastic shopping bag found on the floor of the car holding that the defendant abandoned the car he was driving thus relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy to the contents of the car when he jumped out of the stillmoving car and fled on foot during a high speed chase with police holding that car passenger had legitimate expectation of privacy in his jacket found crumpled on the back seat of car holding that a defendant who had borrowed a car for a limited period of time had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cars locked trunk where it was the very person from whom he had borrowed the car who first called the police after he failed to return the car