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

### Ju ly5,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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, v. J A C K W A Y N E M c K E R R E L L , J R ., D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 5209

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt fo r t h e No r t h e r n Di s t r i c t o f Ok l a h o ma ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CR- 6 8 - CVE) T i m ot hyL . Faerber , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( D avi d E . O ’ M ei l i a, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) , T ul s a, O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B arr yL . D err yberr y , A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder( J ohn V . B ut cher , Feder al P u b li c D efen d er, an d R o b ert A . R iden o u r, A ssist an t Fe d era l Pu b li c D efen d er, w ith h im o n th e b rie f ), T u lsa , O k lah o m a , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

_________________________________ B efor e B RI S CO E , HOLL OW AY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

_______________________________ HOLL OW AY , C i r cui tJ udge. T he Supr eme C our ti n G eor gi a v. R andol ph, 547 U . S. 103, 126 S. C t . 1515, 1519 ( 2006) , hel d t hatt he Four t h A m endmentforbi ds a w arr ant l es s s ear ch of a shared dw el l i ng for evidence o ver a ph y si cal l y -pr esentres i den t ’s exp res s-2-

obj ect i on , no t w i t hst and i ng his or her co-t enan t ’s con sentt o search. W e m ust d e c id e w h e th e r b a rric a d in g o n e se lf in o n e ’s r e sid e n c e , in a n u n su c c e ss f u l effo rt to avoi d a l aw ful arr es t , vi t i at es a co- t enant ’ s s ubs equentcons entt o s ear ch the reside n ce . W e h o ld tha t un d er the circu m stan ce s h ere , w h ere the d istri ct co u rt fo u n d th a t D e fe n d a n t Ja c k M c K e rre ll, Jr. (“ M c K e rre ll”) b a rric a d e d h im se lf in h is r es i dence t o avoi d arr es tand neve rexpr es s l yobj ect ed t o a pos s i bl e s ear ch, M c K e rre ll’s c o -te n a n t’s c o n se n t ju stifies th e c h a llen g e d se a rc h . W e a lso h o ld t hatt he pol i ce r emoved M cK err el l fr om the s cene t o carryouta l aw ful arr es t , not t o m ut e hi s pot ent i al obj ect i on t o the s ear ch. W e ther efor e affi r m t he di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

M c K e rr e ll’ s m o tio n to s u p p re s s .

I . BA CKGROUND O n February24, 2006, an anonym ous cal l eri nform ed the Tul s a Pol i ce D epart m entt hatM cK err el l had out s t andi ng arr es tw arr ant s , us ed m ethamphet ami ne, and pos s es s ed an a s s aul tr i fl e and a s hot gun. R . , V ol . I , D oc. 2 5 , a t2 . T h e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s t i p a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h a tM c Ke rr e l l h a d t wo out s t andi ng fel onyw arr ant s fr om T ul s a C ounty , O kl ahoma, forpos s es s i ng a stolen v eh icl e, tw o m u n ici p al traffic w arran ts from T u lsa, O k laho m a, an d a fo u rc o u n t fe lo n yw a rr a n t f ro m C ra ig C o u n ty, O k la h o m a , fo r d ru g a n d tr a ffic c h a rg e s . I d. O ffi cer s det erm i ned M cK err el l ’ s addr es s bys ear chi ng ut i l i ty - company re c o rd s . Id . L es s t han tw o w eeks l at er , anothercal l ert ol d the pol i ce thatM cK err el l w as-3-

w o rkin g at ho m e in h is fron t y ard . Id. In resp o n se, sev era l po li ce o fficers s u r r o u n d e d t h e r e s i d e n c e a n d a n n o u n c e d th e i rp r e s e n c e . R. , Vo l . I I I , a t9 - 1 0 . By t hatt i m e, M cK err el l w as i ns i de the home w i th hi s w i fe a nd y oung chi l d, both of w h o m a lso re sid e d a t th e h o m e . Id . at 9 , 1 2 , 3 4 . In ste a d o f p e a c e f u lly s ur r ender i ng t o t he off i cer s , how ever , M cK err el l qui ckl ycl os ed the gar age door a n d f ro n t d o o r t o b a rr ic a d e h im s e lf in s id e . Id . a t 1 0 . W i t hi n m i nut es , M r s . M cK err el l exi t ed the home, l eavi ng M cK err el l and th e ir y o u n g c h ild in sid e . Id . at 1 0 , 1 2 . T h e p o lice b e g a n n e g o tiatin g w ith M cK err el l bycal l i ng a ce l l phone i n the home and r eques t i ng, overthe cour s e of th re e o r fo u r c o n v e rsa tio n s, th a t h e su rre n d e r. Id . at 1 6 , 1 7 . B o th p a rties d isp u te w h a t w a s s a id d u rin g th e se c o n v e rsa tio n s a n d M c K e rre ll’s m o tiv e fo r re f u sin g to l eave t he hous e. Ser geantM i ddl et on, w ho s poke w i th M cK err el l on the phone, tes tifie d th a t M c K e rre ll n e v e r o bjec ted to a se a rc h a n d w a s c o n c e rn e d so lelyw ith bei ng arr es t ed. I d. at16. W hi l e Ser geantM i ddl et on coul d notr eca l l w hether M c K e rre ll t o ld h im n o t to e n ter th e re sid e n c e , id. a t 1 7 -1 8 , the S e rg e a n t cle a rly re m e m b e re d th a t th e c o n v e rsa tio n re late d e n tirelyto w h e th e r M c K e rre ll w o u ld a llo w th e o ffic e rs to e x e c u te th e s e v e ra l v a lid a rr e s t w a rr a n ts . Id . a t 2 0 -2 1 . In d e e d , h e te s tifie d th a t M c K e rr e ll n e v e r o bje c te d to a s e a rc h . Id . a t 1 6 . S e rg e a n t W itt , an o th e r o ffice r a t th e sc e n e , tes tifie d sim ilarly : M c K e rre ll di d notexpr es s an obj ect i on t o a s ear ch ei therbefor e oraft erthe pol i ce a rr es t ed hi m . I d. at6. M cK err el l t es t i fi ed thathe expr es s l yi nform ed the pol i ce s ever al-4-

ti m es th at he d id n o t w an t th em inside h is ho m e. Id. at4 9 . T h e d istri ct co u rt fo u n d th a t M c K e rr e ll n e v e r e x p re s s ly re f u s e d to p ro v id e h is c o n s e n t to s e a rc h . R . , V ol. I, D oc. 25 , at8-9. Inst ead, the d i stri ctcou rtcredi t ed the officer s’ test im o n ythat the s u bject of thes e telep h o n e c o n v ersa ti o n s w as M cK errell ’s d e s ir e to a v o id a rr e s t. I d . A ft ert hes e thr ee orfourconver s at i ons , M cK err el l deci ded t o s ur r ender p e a c e f u lly . R ., V o l. III, at 1 7 , 1 2 . T h e p o lice h a n d c u ffe d M c K e rre ll i m m edi at el y . I d. at12. T heydi d nots peak t o hi m abouts ear chi ng the r es i dence orpr ohi bi thi m fr om s peaki ng w i th M r s . M cK err el l . I d. at6; I d. at23, 30. T hey m er el ypl ace d hi m underarr es tand tr ans por t ed hi m t o the pol i ce s t at i on about fi ve mi nut es l at er . I d. at12. Ser geantW i t tt es t i fi ed thatthe pol i ce di d not rem ov e M cK err el l from t he scen e t o p reventhim from i nfluencing M rs . M c K e r r e l l ’ s d e c i s i o n a b o u tc o n s e n t i n g t o a s e a r c h . I d . a t1 3 . M o r e b r o a d l y, Ser geantW i t tt es t i fi ed thatt he off i cer s ’ deci s i on t o r emove M cK err el l fr om the s cene w as unr el at ed t o t hei rdeci s i on t o s ear ch the hous e. I d. at13- 14. Ser geant M i d d l e t o n c o n fi r me d t h a tn o t h i n g u n u s u a l o c c u rr e d : “ i ti s n o tu n u s u a l [ th a twe t ook M cK err el l aw ayfr om t he s cene s o qui ckl y ] . U s ual l y , once w e make t he a rr e s t, w e p u t th e m in th e v e h ic le a n d tr a n s p o rt th e m .” Id . a t 1 9 -2 0 . A f ter M c K e rre ll h a d lef

t th e sc e n e , S e rg e a n t W itta sk e d M rs. M c K e rre ll t o s peak w i t h hi m and Ser geantPet r ee. I d. at5. T he di s tr i ctcourtfound no evidence thatt he p oli ce coe rced her t o d o so. R . , V ol. I, D oc. 25 , at8. M rs .-5-

M c K e rre ll ag re e d to sp e a k w ith th e o ffice rs, a n d th e ya ll en ter e d th e h o m e , w ith M rs . M c K e rr e ll’ s p e rm is s io n , to b e g in th e c o n v e rs a tio n . R ., V o l. I II , a t 6 . Ser geantW i t tus ed thi s conver s at i on as an opportuni tyt o det erm i ne how l ong t he M cK err el l fami l yhad l i ved atthi s hom e ( aboutfoury ear s ) and the s cope o f M rs. M c K e rre ll’s a u th o rityo v e r th e h o m e ’s in ter io r. Id . at 7 . S e rg e a n t W itt t es t i fi ed thatM r s . M cK err el l “[ha d] ful l run of the hous e, ” w hi ch he i nferr ed fr om M rs. M c K e rre ll’s sta tem e n t th a t sh e d id lau n d ryin th e h o m e a n d w a s a b le to a c c e s s e v e ry d ra w e r a n d c lo s e t in th e h o m e . Id . A f ter d isc u ss in g o th e r q u e stio n s th a t M rs. M c K e rre ll p o se d , p rim a rily ques t i ons aboutM cK err el l ’ s bond, the off i cer s as ked M r s . M cK err el l forher c o n se n t to se a rc h th e h o m e . Id . at 8 . S e rg e a n t P e tre e p re se n ted M rs. M c K e rre ll w ith a c o n se n t fo rm a n d e x p lain e d its c o n ten ts, w h ich n o tifie d M rs. M c K e rre ll, in tera lia , t hats he had the r i ghtt o w i thhol d hercons entand the r i ghtt o s t op the se a rc h a t an ytim e . Id . at 8 , 2 3 -2 5 ; R ., V o l. I, D o c . 2 3 , E x . 1 . M rs. M c K e rre ll or al l ycons ent ed and then s i gned the form . R . , V ol . I I I , 24- 25; R . , V ol . I , D oc. 2 3 , E x . 1 . It i s u n d isp u ted th a t M c K e rre ll w a s a b se n t w h e n M rs. M c K e rre ll cons ent ed t o t hi s s ear ch. R . , V ol . I , D oc. 25, at9. T he pol i ce then s ear ched the h o m e a n d fo u n d fo u r fir e a rm s , w h ic h M c K e rr e ll p o s s e s s e d ille g a lly. U lt im ately , M cK errell fil ed a m o ti o n to su p p ress, argu ing that the o fficers v iolated th e F o u rth A m en d m en t bysea rch ing h is r esid en ce b ase d o n h is w ife’s cons ent . R . , V ol . I , D oc. 16. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed M cK err el l ’ s m ot i on-6-

beca us e M r s . M cK err el l ’ s cons entw as s uffi ci entt o j us t i fythe s ear ch i n l i ghtof M c K e rr e ll’ s fa ilu re to o bje c t to th e s e a rc h . R ., V o l. I , D o c . 2 5 , a t 8 -9 . S p e c ifica lly , the c o u rt fo u n d th a t M c K e rre ll’s c o n d u c t at th e sc e n e — sh u tti n g h is d o o rs a n d re m a in in g in s id e — re la te d s o le ly to h is d e s ir e to a v o id a rr e s t. I d . a t 8 . T he di s t r i ctj udge found “ per s uas i ve the t es t i m onyof the off i cer s thatdefe ndant d id n o t exp resslyref

u se c o n sen t t o sea rch h is ho m e.” Id . at 9. T h u s, the c o u rt dis t i ng uis hed G eorgi a v. R and olph bec ause M cK err el l nev er “art i culat ed ‘exp res s refusal of co nsent t o a p oli ce search’ t o o ffi cers pri or t o [M rs . M cK err el l ’s ] cons entt o s ear ch thei rhom e. ” R . , V ol . I , D oc. 25, at9 ( ci t i ng 126 S. C t . at1523, 1 5 2 8 ). M cK err el l t hen pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i ng fi r earm s aft era form erfel ony convi ct i on, a vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) , and r ece i ved a s ent ence of 37 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , 3 y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent , and a $1, 500 fi ne. R . , V ol . I , D oc. 42. M cK err el l r es erved the r i ght t o a p p e a l t h e d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s th e u s e a s e v i d e n c e o f th e fi r e a r ms se ize d f ro m h is re sid e n c e . R ., V o l. I, D o c . 1 0 , at 1 , 3 . H e n o w a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n , a s s e rt in g e rr o r i n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to s u p p re s s . W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . I I . DI S CU S S I ON M c K e rre ll ch a llen g e s th e se a rc h ’s c o n stitu tio n a lityo n tw o g ro u n d s: first, he s ay s t hatt he s ear ch vi ol at ed the Four th A m endmentbeca us e barr i cadi ng-7-

h im self in h is r esid en ce co n v ey ed h is objecti o n to the sea rch an d there fo re pr ecl uded the off

i cer s fr om r el y i ng on hi s w i fe’ s cons ent ; and s econd, he ar gues t hatt he pol i ce r emoved hi m fr om the s cene t o avoi d hi s pos s i bl e obj ect i on t o the s ear ch. A . The Effe c t of M r s . M c K e r r e l l ’ s C ons e nt 1. I n r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e ac ceptt he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs unl es s cl ear l yerr oneous , and w e vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent . U ni t ed St at es v. A l car az- A r el l ano, 441 F. 3d 1252, 1258 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew de novo the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of Four t h A m endmentr eas onabl enes s . I d. T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts “ [ t]h e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in t hei rper s ons , hous es , paper s , and effec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . . . . ” U . S. C ons t . amend. I V . T hi s pr ot ect i on t akes on s peci al m eani ng w h e n th e c h a llen g e d in tru sio n in v o lv e s th e h o m e : “p h y sic a l en tryo f th e h o m e is t he chi ef e vi l agai ns tw hi ch the w or di ng of the Four th A m endmenti s di r ect ed. ” W el s h v. W i s cons i n, 466 U . S. 740, 748 ( 1984) . B utt he Four th A m endment perm i t s a w arr ant l es s entr yand s ear ch of a hom e w hen the “pol i ce obt ai n the vol unt arycons entof an oc cupantw ho s har es , ori s r eas onabl ybel i eved t o s har e, authori t yov er the area i n co m m on w i th a co -occup ant w ho l at er obj ect s t o the use o f e v id e n c e s o o b ta in e d .” R a n d o lp h , 1 2 6 S .C t. a t 1 5 1 8 .-8-

B efor e R andol ph w as deci ded the ques t i on r emai ned w hetherthe pol i ce m ays ear ch a home w hen one oc cupants har i ng the r es i dence cons ent s , butthe ot heroccupa nt , w ho l at ers eeks t o s uppr es s the evi dence , i s pr es entatthe s cene and expr es s l yr efus es t o cons ent . R andol ph ans w er ed thi s ques t i on i n the negat i ve. I n R andol ph, t he defendant ’ s w i fe c om pl ai ned t o the pol i ce thather hus band t ook aw ayt hei rs on fol l ow i ng a domest i c di s put e. I d. at1519. W hen the pol i ce a r r i ved, t he w i fe i nform ed them t hatherhus band w as a coc ai ne addi ct , and s h e v o l u n t e e r e d t h a t“ t h e r e we r e ‘ i t e ms o f d ru g e v i d e n c e ’ ” i n th e h o u s e . I d . At th is p o in t, b o th th e w ife a n d th e d e fe n d a n t w e re p re s e n t a t th e h o m e ’s e n tr a n c e . T he pol i ce f

i r s ts oughtt he defendant ’ s cons entt o s ear ch the r es i dence , buthe expr es s l yr efus ed t o cons ent . I d. So t he pol i ce then tur ned t o the w i fe a nd as ked forhercons ent , w hi ch s he gave . I d. T her eaf t er , the pol i ce s ear ched the r es i dence a n d fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t’ s c o c a in e . Pr es ent ed w i t h t hes e fa ct s , the Supr eme C our ti n R andol ph s etoutt o deci de w hethert he w i fe’ s cons entw as s uffi ci entt o j us t i fythe s ear ch bynot i ng that “[t ] he cons t antel ementi n as s es s i ng Four th A m endmentr eas onabl enes s i n the cons entcas es . . . i s t he gr eats i gni fi canc e gi ven t o w i del ys har ed s oci al e x p e c tatio n s . . . .” Id . at 1 5 2 1 . In o th e r w o rd s, th e C o u rt c h a ra c ter ize d its preceden tas holdi ng no ton l yt hat a co-t enan t ’s con sentm aybe v al i d as aga i nst a n a b se n t, no n c o n se n tin g ten a n t, bu t als o th a t th e re a so n a b len e ss o f th e se a rc h is i n s i gni fi cantpart“a f unct i on of comm onl yhel d under s t andi ng aboutthe-9-

au tho ri tythat co -i n h ab it an ts m ayex erc ise i n w ay s tha t affec t eac h o ther’s in te re s ts .” Id . A p p ly in g th is m e th o d o lo g y , R a n d o lp h sta ted th a t “it is fa ir to sa yth a t a cal l ers t andi ng att he doorof s har ed pr emi s es w oul d have no c onfi dence thatone occupa nt ’ s i nvi t at i on w as a s uffi ci ent l ygood r eas on t o ent erw hen a fel l ow t enant s t ood t her e s ay i ng, ‘ s t ayout . ’ ” I d. at1522- 23. I ns t ead, the C our tr eas oned that unl es s t her e i s a r ecogni zed hi er ar chybetw een the co- t enant s , theym us tr es ol ve their co n fli ct ov er u se o f th eir co m m o n q u arters th rou g h v o lun tary a c c o m m o d a tio n , n o t b ya p p e a ls to a u th o ri ty. Id . a t 1 5 2 3 . R andol ph t hen ana l y zed the fa ct s pr es ent ed. I tr eas oned thats i nce a t enant has no author i t yt o open the doort o a vi s i t oroverhi s orherco- t enant ’ s obj ect i on, w hi l e pr es ent , a pol i ce offi cerhas no bet t ercl ai m t o the r eas onabl enes s of ent er i ng t han the off

i cerw oul d have i n the abs ence of cons ent . I d. T hus , the C our thel d t hat“a w arr ant l es s s ear ch of a s har ed dw el l i ng forevi dence overthe expr es s r efus al of cons entbya phy s i cal l ypr es entr es i dentcannotbe j us t i fi ed as r eas onabl e as t o hi m on t he bas i s of cons entgi ven t o the pol i ce byanother re s id e n t.” Id . a t 1 5 2 6 . T he C our ti n R andol ph admi t t ed thati tw as dr aw i ng a fi ne l i ne byr equi r i ng the d efen d an t t o b e a t th e sc en e a n d to ex p resslyref u se to co n sen t, b u t th e C o u rt r eaffi r m ed thatt hi s i s t he l i ne i tdr ew w hen i ts t at ed thata s ear ch i s cons t i tut i onal even i f the pot ent i al obj ect ori s nearbyand noti nvi t ed t o t ake pa r ti n the-10-

th re s h o ld c o llo q u y . Id . a t 1 5 2 7 . 2. U n li k e in R an d o lph , the p rese n t case d o es n o t i n v it e a str aigh tfo rw ard a p p lica tio n o f

th e ru le th a t a p h y sic a lly -p re se n t co -te n a n t’s e x p re ss re f u sa l to co n sen t vit iat es h is or h er fell o w tena n t’ s co n sen t t o sea rch . T h e d istri ct co u rt her e found thatM cK err el l neverr efus ed cons entt o the s ear ch. R . , V ol . I , D oc. 2 5 , at 8 -9 . M o re o v e r, alth o u g h M c K e rre ll arg u e s th a t h e im p lied lyre f u se d to c o n se n t b ysta y in g in h is h o m e a f ter th e p o lice a rriv e d (w h ich w o u ld still dis t i ng uis h thi s case fr om R and olph bec ause R and olph requir ed an exp res s obj ect i on) , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s agr eed he r e. B as ed on the off i cer s ’ t es t i m ony , t he d istric t co u rt in ste a d fo u n d th a t th e o n lyre a so n M c K e rre ll b a rric a d e d h im se lf in h is r esid en ce w as “ to av o id arres t and to av o id the p o ssibil ityo f a rm ed o fficers comi ng i nt o hi s hom e t o for ci bl yarr es thi m w hi l e hi s s on w as al s o i ns i de the hom e. ” I d. at8. T he courtal s o cr edi t ed the off i cer s ’ t es t i m onyt hat , on the ph on e, M cK err el l seem ed to be co ncerned on l yw i th the val i dityof the arr est w a rr a n ts , n o t w ith th e p o s s ib ility th a t th e o ffic e rs m ig h t s e a rc h h is re s id e n c e . T he fa ctual di s t i nct i ons betw een thi s cas e and Randol ph cal l i nt o doubt R andol ph’ s appl i cabi l i t y . M cK err el l ur ges t hi s courtt o appl yR andol ph, and excl ude the evi dence obt ai ned fr om hi s hom e, aft erdefl ect i ng ouratt ent i on fr om t hes e di s t i nct i ons t o t he i ns t anthe s hutt he doorw hen the off i cer s fi r s tarr i ved at h is h o u se . M c K e rre ll co n ten d s th a t h is o n lyc o n c e rn a t th a t m o m e n t w a s to-11-

pr eventt he off

i cer s fr om ent er i ng hi s hom e— the func t i onal equi val entof expr es s l yr efus i ng t o cons entt o a s ear ch of the home. Pr i nci pal B r i ef of D efe ndant/ A ppel l antat11 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. H ender s on, 2006 W L 3469538, at*1, *2 ( N . D . I l l . 2006) ( s t at i ng thatthe defendant“s ur el yi ncl uded a di r ect i on t hat. . . [the pol i ce] r efr ai n fr om s ear chi ng [hi s ] r es i dence ” w hen he s ai d “[g] et t he fu*k outof m yhous e”) ) . T o be s ur e, the di s tr i ctcour tcoul d have i nferr ed t hats hut t i ng a doori n t he fa ce of an i m m i nentarr es tamount s t o an i m pl i ed d ir ec ti v e to th e o fficers to stayo u t. R eg ard less, w e c o n clud e tha t R an d o lph ’s n a rr o w h o ld in g d o e s n o t a p p ly h e re . F ir st, u n li k e in H en d erso n , the d istri ct co u rth ere fo u n d that M cK errell ’s so le c o n c e rn w a s to a v o id a rre st, n o t to a v o id a rre st and pr eventthe off i cer s fr om ent er i ng hi s hom e t o s ear ch. T he evi dence s uppor t s thi s fi ndi ng: M cK err el l never t ol d t he off

i cer s t o s t ayoutof hi s hom e w hen theyarr i ved; M cK err el l di s cus s ed t he arr es tw arr ant s w hen s peaki ng on the phone w i th the pol i ce, butnever expr es s ed conc ern overt he pos s i bi l i tyof a s ear ch; and M cK err el l nevert ol d the o ffi c e r s t o s t a yo u to f h i s h o me a f

t e rh e s u rr e n d e r e d a n d th e p o l i c e a rr e s t e d h i m, a rg u a b ly b e c a u s e h is c o n c e rn a b o u t b e in g a rr e s te d d is s ip a te d u p o n h is a rr e s t. W hi l e M cK err el l as ks us t o i nferthathe i m pl i edl yr efus ed t o cons entw hen h e c lo se d h is d o o rs to th e p o lice , the p a rties leg iti m a telyd isp u te w h e th e r th is conductr el at ed t o M cK err el l ’ s des i r e t o avoi d arr es tort o hi s des i r e t o di r ectthe offi cer s t o l eave hi s pr oper t yand r efr ai n fr om s ear chi ng, orboth. A l though-12-

M c K e rre ll t e stified th a t h e o bjec ted to a se a rc h , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t cle a rly e rr b yfin d in g th a t M c K e rr e ll a c te d s o le ly to a v o id a rr e s t. S econ d, w hatever m eaning w e cou l d d eci ph er fr om M cK err el l ’s act i on s, R andol ph expl i ci t l ydecl i ned t o conductthi s i nqui ryw hen i tr equi r ed the defe ndantt o have ex

p re ss ly obj ect ed t o the s ear ch. See R andol ph, 126 S. C t . at 1519. W hi l e M cK err el l char act er i zes R andol ph as a s w eepi ng pr onouncement beca us e R andol ph’ s i nt r oduct or ypar agr aph s t at ed that“a phy s i cal l ypr es entcoo cc u p an t’ s stated re fu sal t o p erm iten tryp rev ail s [o v er h is co -oc cu p an t’ s c o n se n t],” id ., M c K e rre ll’s a rg u m e n t ig n o re s th a t th is s tate m e n t w a s te th e re d to the im m ed iat elyp rec ed ing sen tenc e (w h ich a sk ed w h ethe r a p rese n t co-ten an t’ s express o bjec tio n v iti a ted h is c o -te n a n t’s c o n se n t), th a t R a n d o lp h c a re f u lly del i neat ed the narr ow ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch i t s hol di ng appl i ed, and that R andol ph cons ci ous l yempl oy ed a rul e r equi r i ng an expr es s obj ect i on bya pr es ent co- t enant . See i d. at1527 ( s t at i ng that“[t ] hi s i s the l i ne w e dr aw , and w e thi nk t he form al i s m i s j us t i fi ed . . . [bec aus e] ther e i s val ue i n the s i m pl e cl ar i tyof compl ement aryrul es , one r ecogni zi ng the co- t enant ’ s perm i s s i on w hen ther e i s no fel l ow occupa nton hand, t he otheracc or di ng di s pos i t i ve w ei ghtt o the fe l l ow occupa nt ’ s contr aryi ndi cat i on w hen he expr es s es it” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). M c K e rre ll as k s u s to ig n o re th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s p lain lan g u a g e , reje c t it s cons ci ous l y - i m pos ed form al i s m , and appl ya rul e l i kel yt o begetthe type of c o n f u s io n R a n d o lp h in te n d e d to a v o id . W e reje c t th is a p p ro a c h .-13-

T hi r d, even i f w e i nt erpr et ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s opi ni on as fi ndi ng that M c K e rre ll atte m p ted to a v o id a rre st b yim p lied lyd ire c tin g th e o ffice rs n o t to ent erhi s r es i dence t o arr es thi m , the pol i ce w er e underno obl i gat i on t o obey M cK err el l ’s i m pli ed requ est . In V al dez v . M cP heter s, w e held that an arr est w arr antcoul d s uppor tt he s ear ch of a dw el l i ng w hen ( 1) the dw el l i ng i s the s us pect ’ s hom e, and ( 2) t he pol i ce ha ve an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bel i ef thatthe su sp e c t “c o u ld b e fo u n d w ith in a t th e tim e o f e n try .” 1 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 5 (1 0 th C i r . 1999) . T her e i s no di s put e thatM cK err el l l i ved atthe dw el l i ng w her e the p o lice fo u n d h is fire a rm . L ik e w ise , the re is n o d isp u te th a t th e p o lice re a so n a b ly bel i eved thatM cK err el l coul d be found w i thi n the dw el l i ng. A l though V al dez does notj us t i fyt he s ear ch her e bec aus e the off i cer s r emoved M cK err el l fr om t he s cene befor e ent er i ng t he hous e, V al dez de m ons tr at es thatM cK err el l ’ s al l eged i ns t ruct i ons di d noter ecta l egal barr i erathi s thr es hol d. I n otherw or ds , thatthe o ffice rs d id n o t im m e d iate lye n ter th e h o m e in th is c a se re flec ts th e ir a ttem p t to peac eful l yr es ol ve a pot ent i al l ydanger ous confr ont at i on, notthei runder s t andi ng th a t th e yh a d s o m e h o w b e e n d e n ie d th e ira u th o ri ty to e n te r M c K e rr e ll’ s h o m e . T her e i s no ques t i on t hatt he pol i ce c oul d have r ebuked M cK err el l ’ s door - cl os i ng t a c t i c b yr e s o r t i n g t o t h e b a t t e r i n g r a m. F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , M c Ke r r e l l ’ s r e l i a n c e o n Ra n d o l p h i s mi s p l a c e d . He n ev er e x p resslyo bjected to the sea rch , ac co rdin g to the fin d ing w h ich th e re co rd s u p p o rt s . T h e re fo re , R a n d o lp h ’s h o ld in g d o e s n o t a p p ly h e re .-14- 3 . W e ar e now l eftw her e R andol ph began, not i ng thatt he r eas onabl enes s of t he s ear ch i s i n s i gni fi cantpart“a f unct i on of comm onl yhel d under s t andi ng about the a u tho ri tythat co -i n h ab it an ts m ayex erc ise i n w ay s tha t affec t eac h o ther’s i nt er es t s . ” R andol ph, 126 S. C t . at1521. H er e, t hatunder s t andi ng amount s t o t he fol l ow i ng pr i nci pl e: a co- t enant ’ s cons entt o s ear ch a s har ed r es i dence m aybe val i d as agai ns tan abs ent , noncons ent i ng t enant . I d. ; U ni t ed St at es v. M at l ock, 4 1 5 U .S . 1 6 4 , 1 7 0 (1 9 7 4 ). S e e a lso R a n d o lp h 1 2 6 S .C t. at 1 5 2 7 (sta tin g th a t a nearbypot ent i al obj ect or“l os es out ” w hen the pol i ce do noti nvi t e hi m t o t ake p a rt in th e c o n v e rs a tio n in w h ic h h is c o -t e n a n t g iv e s p e rm is s io n to s e a rc h ). M r s . M cK err el l exer ci s ed author i tyovert he comm on ar ea thats he al l ow ed t he off i cer s t o s ear ch, and the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notcl ear l yerrbyfi ndi ng that M c K e rre ll d id n o t o bjec t to th e se a rc h . In lig h t o f th e se fa c ts, w e fin d n o e rro r in th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e o ffice rs c o m p lied w ith th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t b yre lyin g o n M rs . M c K e rr e ll’ s c o n s e n t to s e a rc h th e re s id e n c e .

B. R e m ov i ng M c K e r r e l l fr om t he Sc e ne M cK err el l al s o ar gues t hatt he “e vi dence i n thi s cas e i ndi cat es t hatr emoval of the D efen dan tm i nu t es aft er hi s arres tw as for the sake of av oidi ng his prot est of a s ear ch. ” Pr i nci pal B r i ef of D efe ndant/ A ppel l antat12. M cK err el l r el i es on th e lim itatio n im p o se d b yR a n d o lp h th a t a s e a rc h m ig h t b e u n c o n stitu tio n a l “[ if t her e i s ] evi dence t hatt he pol i ce ha ve r emoved t he pot ent i al l yobj ect i ng t enant-15-

fr om t he entr ance fort he s ake of avoi di ng a pos s i bl e obj ect i on . . . . ” R andol ph, 126 S. C t . at1527. M cK err el l i nfer s thatthi s occurr ed her e bec aus e “a nypol i ce offi cerw oul d have ha d a des i gn t o s ear ch [M cK err el l ’ s ] r es i dence i f the l egal oppor tuni t ydevel oped” a ft err ece i vi ng a t i p thatM cK err el l pos s es s ed guns and d ru g s. P rin c ip a l B rie f o f D e fe n d a n t/A p p e llan t at 1 2 . In o th e r w o rd s, M c K e rre ll ar gues , t he fa ctt hatt he off i cer s s ear ched hi s r es i dence demonstr at es thatthe offi cer s pl anned t o s ear ch the r es i dence , and thi s s ear ch coul d occuronl yaft er a v o id in g M c K e rr e ll’ s p o te n tia l o bje c tio n b yre m o v in g h im f ro m th e s c e n e . M cK err el l ’ s ar gum entbegs the ques t i on byl eapi ng t o i t s concl us i on fr om t he innoc uo us i nference thatt he p oli ce searched M cK err el l ’s res i den ce bec ause th e yp lan n e d to d o so “ if th e leg a l o p p o rtu n ityd e v e lo p e d ,” id . D e sp ite M cK err el l ’ s s pecul at i ons , w e mustas k onl yw hetherthe evi dence s how s thatthe offi cer s r emoved M cK err el l fr om the s cene t o avoi d hi s pos s i bl e obj ect i on. A nd o n th is p o in t, th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e p o lice re m o v e d M c K e rre ll fo r th is re a s o n . T he evi dence does s how t hatthe pol i ce r emoved M cK err el l fr om the s cene and tr ans por t ed hi m t o t he pol i ce s t at i on t o carryouta l aw ful arr es t . B ut M cK err el l has notdi r ect ed ourat t ent i on t o anythi ng s us pi ci ous aboutthe p ro c e d u re s th a t th e p o lice e m p lo y e d . In ste a d , h is a n a ly sis e ss e n tiallyu rg e s u s to ac ce p t his unjusti fied sp ec u lat ion s an d circu m v en t R an d o lph ’s ev iden ti ary r equi r ement . R andol ph s t at ed thatther e mustbe evi dence thatthe pol i ce r emoved-16-

t he pot ent i al l yobj ect i ng t enantfr om the s cene t o avoi d hi s orherobj ect i on. See R andol ph, 126 S. C t . at1527. Si nce ther e i s no evi dence thatthe pol i ce pr event ed M cK errell fro m o bjecti n g to the sea rch w h en h e w as a t th e sc en e, an d sinc e the re i s no evi dence t hatt he off i cer s r emoved M cK err el l foranyr eas on otherthan compl et i ng t he arr es t , w e have no r eas on t o i nvoke R andol ph’ s admoni s hm ent t hatoffi cer s m aynotr emove a defe ndantfr om the thr es hol d t o s i l ence hi s orher pot ent i al obj ect i on. M cK err el l al s o ar gues t hatthe pol i ce mi ghti nvoke the j us t i fi cat i on that th e yre m o v e d a n a rre ste e to e ffe c t h is o r h e r a rre st e v e rytim e th e ya rre st a defe ndant

— i m pl y i ng t hatacc ept i ng the off i cer s ’ j us t i fi cat i on w oul d i m m uni ze a n yp o s t- a rr e s t r e m o v a l a n d c o n s e n t s e a rc h f ro m F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t c h a lle n g e . See Pr i nci pal B r i ef of D efe ndant/ A ppel l antat12. B utthi s obs ervat i on does not advanc e M cK err el l ’ s cas e. H i s ar gum entw hol l yr el i es on the fa ctthatthe pol i ce se a rc h e d h is re sid e n c e , an d th e re fo re w o u ld h a v e h a d th e “ d e sig n ” to se a rc h , to s h o w th a t th e p o lic e a rr e s te d a n d re m o v e d h im to a v o id h is p o te n tia l o bje c tio n . A cce pt i ng t hi s s pecul at i on w oul d come per i l ous l ycl os e t o adopt i ng a rul e thatt he pol i ce mustei t heri nvi t e a de fenda nti nt o the thr es hol d col l oquyw i th the coten a n t o r o th e rw ise su sp e n d th e ir n o rm a l ar re st p ro c e d u re s a n d a w a it a defe ndant ’ s pot ent i al obj ect i on, how everl ong i tm i ghtt ake, befor e tr ans por t i ng h i m o rh e rt o t h e s t a t i o n . Ra n d o l p h d o e s n o ts u p p o r te i th e ra p p r o a c h . As M cK err el l conce des , t he Supr eme C our ti n R andol ph expr es s l yr ej ect ed the not i on-17-

t hat the p oli ce m ayno trem ov e a po t enti al obj ect or fr om the scen e un t i l theyask fort he pot ent i al obj ect or ’ s cons entt o s ear ch. R andol ph, 126 S. C t . at1527- 28; se e a lso id . at 1 5 2 7 (sta tin g th a t “[ t]h e re is n o re a d yre a so n to b e liev e th a t effo rts t o i nvi t e a r efus al w oul d m ake a di ffe r ence i n m anycas es , w her eas everycotena n t con sen t case w o u ld turn into a testab o u t th e a d eq u ac yo f th e p o li ce ’s e ffo rt s to c o n s u lt w ith a p o te n tia l o bje c to r” ). R andol ph di d notups ett he pr ocedur es thatm aybe empl oy ed fol l ow i ng an arr es t ; i tm er el ys ugges t ed thatt he Four th A m endmentm i ghtpr ohi bi ta s ear ch w h e n e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t th e p o lice re m o v e d th e d e fe n d a n t f ro m th e sc e n e to avoi d hi s orherpot ent i al obj ect i on t o the s ear ch. A l though evi dence thatthe pol i ce us ed an a r r es tas a t ool t o avoi d a pos s i bl e obj ect i on m i ghttr i gger R andol ph, t he bar e fa ctt hatt he pol i ce a rr es t ed M cK err el l and br oughthi m t o t he p o lic e s ta tio n d o e s n o t s u p p o rt s u c h a c o n c lu s io n h e re . I I I . CO NC L US I ON T h e re c o rd su p p o rts th e fin d in g th a t M c K e rre ll n e v e r e x p re ss lyo bjec ted to th e se a rc h th a t h e n o w c h a llen g e s. A d d iti o n a lly , the p o lice re m o v e d M c K e rre ll fr om t he s cene t o compl et e an a rr es t , nott o s t i fl e hi s pos s i bl e obj ect i on t o the su b seq u en t search , ac co rdin g to find ing s the rec o rd su p p o rt s. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s d ec isi o n to d en ythe m o ti o n to su p p ress is th ere fo re AFF I RM ED .