T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Pl ai nt i ff–A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 1021 v . ( Ca s e No . 0 5 - CR - 7 4 - E WN) KE I T H AL AN MALAD Y, a l s o k n o wn a s K i p S t a l e y, (D . C o lo .)

D e fe n d a n t– A p p e llan t.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e or der ed su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. A ppel l antK ei t h A l an M al adyw as convi ct ed bya j ur yof s ever al count s of fi r earm s and contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s offe ns es as w el l as one countof obs t ruct i on of justi ce . In th is direct cri m inal ap p ea l, A p p ell an t cha ll en g es c ertain e v iden ti ary- 2-

ru lin g s m a d e b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Fi r s t , A ppel l antar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed byal l ow i ng t he governm entt o admi tdur i ng i t s cas e- i n- chi ef phot ogr aphi c exhi bi t s pr ovi ded by A ppel l ant ’ s couns el pur s uantt o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s cour t r oom rul es . W e r evi ew th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a d m it e v id e n c e fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See Uni t ed St at es v. Sam ani ego , 1 8 7 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). D ur i ng t he tr i al , governm entw i t nes s R ache l W i l ken t es t i fi ed thats he had gone w i t h herhus band t o a C ol or ado Spr i ngs s t or e atw hi ch he pur chas ed a fi r earm forA ppel l ant . W hen s he w as unabl e t o r emem bert he name of the s t or e, t he g ov ernm ent s ou gh tt o refres h h er r ecoll ect i on w i t h o ne o f t he m arked d efen se t r i al exhi bi t s — a phot ogr aph of a s t or efr ontand i t s par ki ng l ot . A ppel l ant o bjected to the u se a n d ad m issi o n o f th is ex h ibito n the b asis o f a tt o rne yw o rk p rod u ct. T h e d istri ct co u rto v erru led th e o bjecti o n , h o lding that “this is no t w o rk p rod u ct byan ystr etch o f th e im ag ination . ” (T r. , v o l. 5 , at 47 7 . ) W e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byal l ow i ng t hi s evi dence t o be admi t t ed. T he att or neyw or k pr oductdoctr i ne “i s i nt ended onl yt o guar d agai ns tdi vul gi ng t he att or ney ’ s s t r at egi es and l egal i m pr es s i ons . ” R es ol ut i on Trus tC or

p. v. D abney , 7 3 F .3 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). D o c u m e n ts orot heri t ems t hatdo notr efl ectt he att or ney ’ s m ent al i m pr es s i ons ar e not p ro te c te d b yth e w o rk p ro d u c t d o c tr in e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Nobl es , 42 2 U. S. 225, 238 ( 1975) ( “A ti t s cor e, t he w or k- pr oductdoctr i ne s hel t er s t he ment al- 3-

pr oces s es of the att or ney , pr ovi di ng a pr i vi l eged a r ea w i t hi n w hi ch he c an ana l y ze an d p rep are h is cl ient’s ca se.”); In r e G r and Jur y Proce edi ngs , 658 F. 2d 782, 784- 85 ( 10t h C i r . 1981) ( “Such ment al i m pr es s i ons ar e a pr er equi s i t e t o t he i nvocat i on of t he w or k pr oductdoctr i ne. ”) . T he phot ogr aph ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e, w hi ch depi ct s a publ i c s t or efr ont , cl ear l ydoes notr efl ectt he att or ney ’ s m ent al i m pr es s i ons and ther efor e i s nott he type of e vi dence t hati s pr ot ect ed byt he w o rk -p ro d u c t e x c e p tio n . Second, A ppel l antar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed byal l ow i ng t es t i m ony th a t A p p e lla n t a d m itte d to s te a lin g th e g u n s a fe th a t p o lic e fo u n d in h is h o u s e . A ppel l ant ’ s pos s es s i on of thi s gun s afe w as an i m por t anti s s ue i n t w o of the count s agai ns thi m att r i al

— one countof fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm and one countof obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. T he fe l on i n pos s es s i on char ge w as bas ed on a pi s t ol t hatpol i ce di s cover ed i n t he gun s afe , w hi l e the obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce c h a rg e w a s b a se d o n A p p e llan t’s a ttem p ts to d e c e iv e th e c o u rt re g a rd in g h is ow ner s hi p of the s afe . T o pr ove the obs t ruct i on char ge, t he governm entpr es ent ed e v id e n c e th a t A p p e llan t co n sp ire d w ith h is w ife to fa b ric a te a lette r, p u rp o rte d ly w r i t t en byt hei rfr i end, C hr i s t opherW i l ken, i ndi cat i ng t hatt he s afe and the pi s t ol b elon g ed to M r. W il k en . A fter A p p ell an t’ s w ife h ad o b tai n ed M r. W il k en ’s s i gnatur e on the l et t er , i n excha nge form ethamphet ami ne, t he l et t erw as pr es ent ed t o A pp el l ant’ s coun sel w i t h the i ntentt hat i tbe sub m i t t ed to t he co urt . T hu s, evi dence of t he theftof the gun s afe w as admi t t ed fort he purpos e of pr ovi ng- 4-

A p p e lla n t’ s k n o w in g p o s s e s s io n o f th e s a fe . A p p e l l a n to bj e c t e d t o t h i s e v i d e n c e a tt r i a l , a r g u i n g th a ti tw a s h e a r s a y, irre lev a n t, an d sp e c u lativ e , b u t h is o bjec tio n s w e re o v e rru led . O n a p p e a l, A ppel l antar gues t hatt hi s evi dence vi ol at ed Feder al R ul es of Evi dence 403, 404( b) , and 405. W e fi r s tnot e thatA ppel l antdi d notpr oper l ypr es er ve thi s i s s ue forappea l , as t he r ecor d befor e us does nots how t hathe obj ect ed bel ow on t he gr ounds he now r ai s es on appea l . H ow ever , even i f thi s obj ect i on had bee n pr oper l yr ai s ed, w e conc l ude, cons i der i ng t he cont extof thi s cas e, t hatt he di s t r i ct cour tw oul d nothave a bus ed i t s di s cr et i on byal l ow i ng admi s s i on of the obj ect edt o evi dence . T her efor e, w e affi r m t he rul i ng. Fi nal l y , A ppel l antar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcour terr ed bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence obt ai ned fr om hi s hous e. I n hi s s uppr es s i on m ot i on, A ppel l antar gued thatt he pol i ce offi cer s w oul d nothave obt ai ned a s ear ch w a rr a n t w e re it n o t fo r t h e iru n la w f u l a c tio n s o f, in tera lia , (1) o b tai n ing the V IN f ro m a sto len p ick u p tru c k in h is d riv e w a y , (2 ) fo llo w in g h im u p sta irs in to h is bedr oom , w her e the gun s afe w as obs er ved, and ( 3) conduct i ng a pr ot ect i ve s w eep of the hous e af

t erhi s arr es t . A ft erhol di ng a s uppr es s i on hear i ng, t he di s t r i ct cour trul ed thatA ppel l antl acke d anyexpec t at i on of pr i vacyi n t he s t ol en vehi cl e, th a t A p p e llan t im p licitlyc o n se n ted to th e p o lice o ffice r fo llo w in g A p p e llan t to hi s bedr oom , and thatt he pr ot ect i ve s w eep c onduct ed af t erA ppel l ant ’ s arr es tw as j u s t i fi e d b y t h e p o t e n t i a l t h r e a tt o o ffi c e rs a fe t y.- 5-

Wh e n r e v i e wi n g a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s ru l i n g o n a s u p p r e s s i o n mo t i o n , “ we a c c e p tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s fa c tu a l fi n d i n g s a b s e n tc l e a re r r o ra n d r e v i e w de novo th e d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endment . ” Unit ed S t ates v. O lgu i n-R i vera , 1 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l yrul ed thatA ppel l antl acke d a n ye x p e c tatio n o f

p riv a c yin th e sto len tru c k . It i s w e ll es tab lish e d th a t a d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t h a v e a n yleg iti m a te e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c yin a sto len v e h icle o r i ts c o n te n ts . Uni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 8 4 F . 3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Uni t ed Stat es v. Hol l and , 1 1 6 F . 3 d 1 3 5 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. B etancur , 24 F. 3d 73, 76 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . A ppel l ant a rg u e s th a t Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 3 6 2 U .S . 2 5 7 (1 9 6 0 ), p ro v id e s h im w ith s t andi ng t o chal l enge the s ear ch of the s t ol en truck bec aus e he ha d per s onal p ro p e rt yin th e b e d o f th e tru c k a n d th e tru c k w a s p a rk e d in h is d ri v e w a y . H o w e v e r, Jones w a s o v e r ru l e d b y Uni t ed Stat es v. Sal vucc i , 488 U . S. 83, 95 ( 1980) , w hi ch hel d t hat“the aut om at i c s t andi ng rul e of Jones h a s o u tli v e d its us eful nes s i n t hi s C our t ’ s Four t h A m endment j ur i s prudence . ” F u rth e rm o re , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t th e re is “ n o re a so n a b le expec t at i on of pr i vacyi n t he V I N ” of a vehi cl e, gi ven the “i m por t antr ol e pl ay ed byt he V I N i n t he pervas i ve governm ent al r egul at i on of the aut om obi l e and the effor t s byt he Feder al G overnm entt o ens ur e thatt he V I N i s pl ace d i n pl ai n vi ew . ”- 6-

New York v. C l ass , 475 U . S. 106, 113- 14 ( 1986) . R ecogni zi ng t hi s fac t , w e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hati f “the V I N on t he das hboar d i s cover ed and the dr i veri s not in th e v e h ic le , th e o ffic e r m a yo p e n th e d o o r t o re a d th e V IN o n th e d o o rj a m b . . . orhe mayr eac h i nt o t he vehi cl e t o r emove anyobs t ruct i on cover i ng t he V I N on t he das hboar d. ” Mi l l er , 84 F. 3d at1251. B eca us e the V I N w as notvi s i bl e and A ppel l antw as noti n t he vehi cl e att he t i m e, t he off i cerw as j us t i fi ed i n openi ng t h e t ru c k ’ s d o o rt o l o c a t e t h e VI N. A s to A p p e llan t’s c o n ten tio n th a t a p o lice o ffice r u n law f u llyfo llo w e d h im u p sta irs in to h is b e d ro o m , the d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A p p e llan t im p licitly co n sen ted to the o fficer’s ac ti o n s. W h ethe r or n o t A p p ell an t gav e v o lun tary cons enti s a ques t i on of fa ct , t o be det er m i ned fr om t he t ot al i t yof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. P at t en , 1 8 3 F . 3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h u s, w e re v iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s ruli n g fo r clear e rror. A defe ndantdoes notneed t o verbal l yagr ee t o a s ear ch i n or derforcons ent to b e v a lid . See i d. at11 95 (val i d im pli ed co nsent t o search i nsi de suit case b e c a u se d e fe n d a n t silen tlya n d w ith o u t o bjec tio n u n z ip p e d su itca se ); see also Uni t ed Stat es v. R am i r ez - C hi l el , 289 F. 3d 744, 752 ( 11t h C i r . 2002) ( defe ndant demonst r at ed hi s cons entt o ent ert r ai l er“by‘ y i el di ng t he r i ght - of- w ay ’ fort he o ffice rs to e n ter ” ). H e re , A p p e llan t to ld th e o ffice r th a t th e v e h icle o w n e rsh ip paper s t he off

i cerhad r eques t ed w er e ups t ai r s , t hen A ppel l antw al ked up the sta irs w ith o u t f

u rth e r c o n v e rsa tio n . A t n o p o in t d id A p p e llan t tell th e o ffice r to- 7-

s t aydow ns t ai r s orot herw i s e i ndi cat e thatt he off i cerw as notw el come t o fol l ow hi m . H ow ever , w hen the off i cerr eques t ed t o s ear ch the gun s afe w her e the p a p e rs w e re a lleg e d lylo c a ted

— A p p e llan t w a s u n a b le to p ro d u c e o w n e rsh ip d o c u m e n tatio n f

ro m th e sta c k o f

p a p e rs h e d re w f

ro m th e sa fe — A p p e llan t to ld hi m t hathe coul d not . A s t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, t hi s r es pons e demonstr at ed that A p p e llan t w a s a w a re o f h is rig h t to re f

u se c o n se n t to a se a rc h a n d c h o se n o t to exer ci s e i tw hen the off i cerfol l ow ed hi m ups t ai r s . W e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ct c o u rt re a s o n a b ly co n s tru e d A p p e lla n t’ s c o n d u c t a s im p lyin g c o n s e n t to th e s e a rc h . Fi nal l y , A ppel l antar gues t hatt he pr ot ect i ve- s w eep e xcept i on t o t he w arr ant r equi r ement di d notappl yi n t hi s cas e bec aus e A ppel l antand hi s gues thad al r eadybeen r emoved fr om t he hous e w hen pol i ce c arr i ed outt he s ear ch. T he dis t ri ctcou rtov erruled t his obj ect i on , con cl ud i ng t hat, un der t he cir cum st ances, th e o ffic e r w a s ju s tifie d in c o n d u c tin g a p ro te c tiv e s w e e p o f th e h o u s e . R e v ie w in g th is fa c tu a l c o n c lu s io n fo r c le a r e rr o r, w e a ffir m . A p rotec ti v e sw ee p is pe rm issi b le “‘if the s ea rch ing o fficer p o sses se[ d ] a r eas onabl e bel i ef ba s ed on s peci fi c and a r t i cul abl e fa ct s w hi ch, t aken t ogether w ith th e ra tio n a l in fe re n c e s f ro m th o se fa c ts, re a so n a b lyw a rra n t[ e d ] th e o ffice r in bel i evi ng t hatt he ar ea s w eptharbor ed an i ndi vi dual pos i ng a dange rt o t he off i cer orot her s . ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 360 F. 3d 1235, 1242 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Ma ry la n dv . B u ie , 4 9 4 U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 (1 9 9 0 )) . T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatt he off i cer ’ s s w eep of

t he home w as j us t i fi ed by- 8-

a leg iti m a te c o n c e rn th a t th e re m ig h t b e a n o th e r p e rso n in th e h o u se w h o w o u ld pos e a thr eatt o offi cers afe t y . I n l i ghtof the ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng A ppel l ant ’ s s i gni fi cantdel ayi n r es pondi ng t o t he door , t he vi deo ca m er a poi nt i ng att he off

i cer s fr om t he ups t ai r s w i ndow , t he pr es ence of atl eas tone otherper s on i n t he hous e w hen the off i cer s arr i ved, t he exi s t ence of the gun s afe i n t he bedr oom , t he conf

i r m at i on t hatt he vehi cl e i n t he dr i vew ayw as s t ol en, and the fa c t th a t th e o ffice rs n e e d e d to re m a in o n th e p ro p e rtyfo r so m e tim e w h ile w ait ing fo r a tow tru ck to arrive , w e find n o erro r i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e p ro te c tiv e s w e e p w a s ju s tifie d . AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge