# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 23 82

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Adr ia n L. Dun n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mi ch ael B. Mat ti vi , Pro ba ti on Offic er; Jo hn 1 Do e, Fed eral Agen t; Jo hn 2 Do e, Fed eral Agen t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 18 , 20 13 Fi le d: Octo be r 23 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BYE, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Fed e r al in m at e Adr ia n L. Dun n, Sr. ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr e-s erv ic e 1 di sm is sa l, wit ho u t p r e

ju di ce, of hi s pr o se act io n br ou gh t un de r Bive ns v. Si x

The Hon or ab le Dean Whi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct J u d g e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.U

n kn ow n Na med Age nt

s , 40 3 U.S. 38 8, 38 9 (1 97 1) an d st at e la w, ch al le ng in g th e

se arch an d se iz ur e of hi s pr op ert y

. Upo n de no vo rev ie w, se e Co op er v. Sc hr ir o , 18 9 F.3 d 78 1, 78 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m ) (2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 A di sm is sa l), th is co ur t affi rm s wi th m od ifi cat io n.

Dun n c ha ll en ge d a sea rch of t he res id en ce he sha red wit h hi s gi rlf rie nd

. The

se arch was co nd uc te d by th e gi rlf rie nd ’s pr ob at io n of

fic er, acco m

pa ni ed by two fed eral la w-en fo rcem en t of fic ers

. The di s t r i c t c o ur t co rrec tl y he ld th e gi rlf rie nd ’s

co ns e n t was su ffi ci en t to al lo w a se arch of th e en ti re pr em is es

. Se e Ill in oi s v. Rod ri gu ez , 49 7 U.S. 17 7, 18 1, 18 6 (1 99 0) (s earc h co nduc te d pu rs ua nt to co ns en t of

oc cu pa nt va li d as to ab se nt co -o ccu pa nt who sh ares , or is re a s o na bl y be li ev ed to sh are, au th or it y ov er area in c omm on ). Neit he r th e pr es en ce of la w-en fo rcem en t of fic ers at th e se arch no r th e actua l m ot iv at io ns fo r co nd uc ti ng th e se arch ch an ge th e

res ul t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Kn ig ht s , 53 4 U.S. 11 2, 12 2 (2 00 1) (rea so na bl en es s of

se ar ch ev al ua te d un de r tra di ti on al Fo ur th Am en dm en t an al y si s; no ba si s fo r

ex am in in g of

fic ia l pu rp os e); Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 34 6 F.3 d 80 8, 81 1- 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (n o ba si s fo r ex am in in g of fic ia l pu rp os e or “ act ua l m ot i v a t i o n s ” of of fic ers ; Kn ig ht s el im in at ed “ st al ki ng ho rs e” o r “ in ve st ig at or y pu rp os e” in qu iry); cf. Uni te d St at es v. Becke r , 53 4 F.3 d 95 2, 95 5- 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( c o n s e n s ua l se arch of
pr ob at io ne r’s res id en ce by pr ob at io n of fic er an d two la

w -e nf or ce m ent of

fi ce rs di d no t vi ol at e Fo ur th Am en dm en t).

Bec au se th e co m

pl ai nt fai le d to st at e a fed eral cl ai m , th e di sm is sa l of Dun n’s Bive ns cla im s i s m od ifi edto be wit h p reju di ce. The wit ho ut -p reju di ce di sm is sa l o f Dun n’s pe nd en t st at e-l aw cl ai m s was wit hi n th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s di sc ret io n. Se e La bi cka s v. Ark. St at e. Uni v. , 78 F.3 d 33 3, 33 4- 35 (8 th C i r

. 19 96 ) (p er cu ria m ) (fo ll owi ng di sm i s s al of fed eral cl ai m s, co ur t m ay di sm is s st at e la w cl ai m s wit ho ut pr ejud ic e).

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-