FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
OCTOB ER 17, 2011

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Nos . 10 -1 18 22 & 1 0- 12 42 0

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et Nos . 2: 09 -cr- 00 05 2- JES- DNF-1 ; 2 :0 9- cr-0 00 09 -J ES-DNF-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

GILBERTO RIOS,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
(Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 1)

Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d HILL, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

Gil be rto Ri os ap pe al s hi s c o n v i c ti on s an d 13 0- m on th to ta l se nt en ce fo r

po ss es si ng wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C.§§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )( 1 ) ( C )

, an d kn owi ng ly po ss es si ng a fir earm in an d affe ct in g

in te rs ta te an d fo rei gn co m m erce aft er ha vi ng b een co nv ic te d of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le

by im pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

.

O n ap pe al

, Ri os arg ue s th at : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s be cau se hi s co ns en t to th e in it ia l se arch of hi s ho te l ro om was no t vo lu nt ary,

th e of fic ers ex ceed ed th e sc op e of hi s co ns en t, an d th e se arch warra nt was ov erb ro ad

an d i n v i ol at io n of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s Part ic ul ari ty Cl au se ; (2 ) th e

go ve rn m en t’s refe ren ces at tri al to Ri os ’s refu sa l to co ns en t to th e warra nt le ss se arch

of a sa fe i n h is ho te l ro om vi ol at ed hi s Fo ur th an d F ift h Am en dm en t ri gh ts ; an d (3 )

th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d in ap pl y in g th e fir earm s en ha nc em en t si nc e th e gu n was

in a lo ck ed saf

e. Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we affi rm

. 1

In rev ie win g th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s, we “ rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s

fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s ap pl ic at io n of th e la w to th os e fact s de no vo .”

Uni te d St at es v. Tov ar-R ic o, 61 F.3 d 15 29

, 15 34 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 95 ). “ [A]ll fact s are

co ns tru ed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty be lo w.” Id

. W e m ay

co ns id er ev id en ce pr es en te d at bo th th e he ari ng on th e m ot io n to su pp res s an d at th e

Rios also appeals his revoc ation of super vised rele ase ba sed on these c onvictions. 1

Howeve r, bec ause Rios makes only two passing ref

ere nces to his re vocation of supe rvised
rele ase in his initial brief, he ha s abandone d this iss ue. See U nited States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that the appe llant abandone d an issue whe n he only
included “f

our passing ref

ere nces” to the issue in his brief).

2tri al

. Uni te d S t a t es v. Vil la bo na -Garn ic a, 63 F.3 d 10 51

, 10 56 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 95 ).

W hi le ev id en ti ary ru li ng s are rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, U n i te d St at es v.

Mat eo s, 62 3 F.3 d 13 50

, 13 65 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 15 40 (2 01 1)

,

we ge ne ral ly rev ie w co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on s de no vo , Uni te d St at es v. O’ Keefe

, 46 1

F.3 d 13 38

, 13 46 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). Howev er, a co ns t i t u t i o na l erro r is de em ed

ha rm le ss if “ it ap pe ars be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e erro r co m pl ai ne d of di d no t

co nt rib ut e to th e ve rd ic t ob ta in ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Gari

, 57 2 F.3 d 13 52

, 13 62 (1 1t h

C i r

. 20 09 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 0 S. Ct

. 15 62 (2 01 0) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. Fi n a l l y, w e

rev ie w a “ di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact un de r U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) fo r cl ear erro r,

an d th e ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s t o t h o s e fact s de no vo .” Uni te d

St at es v. Ph am , 46 3 F .3d 12 39 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

The rel ev an t fact s -- el ic it ed du rin g bo th th e su pp res si on he ari ng an d tri al
-- are

th es e. Dete ct iv e Cra ig Aum en t t es ti fie d t ha t, i n re sp on se to a cal l ab ou t su sp ic io us

act iv it y rel at ed to na rco ti cs , he an d two ot he r de te ct iv es ha d kn oc ke d on th e do or of

a ho te l ro o m t h a t was an swe red by Defe nd an t Ri os

. Aum en t ex pl ai ne d to Ri os th e

in fo rm at io n th at he ha d rece iv ed ab ou t su sp ic io ns of dr ug act iv it y , an d as ke d Ri os if

he wou ld al lo w th em “ to se arch th e ro om fo r na rco ti cs .” Ri os in it ia ll y sa id y es , bu t

he qu ic kl y ch an ge d hi s m in d. Dete ct iv e Aume n t to ld Ri os th at th ey wou ld se ek a

se arch warra nt an d wou ld ne ed to se cu re th e ro om

. Ri os “ sp on ta ne ou sl y sa id

, ‘T ha t

3co ul d ta ke a lo ng ti m e,’

. . . ‘W el l, th ere’s no th in g in he re an y ho w, jus t go ah ead an d

lo ok .’ ” Aum en t as ke d Ri os if he was cert ai n, an d Ri os in di cat ed t h a t h e w a s an d

op en ed th e do or to al lo w th e de te ct iv es in to th e ro om

. Ri os to ld Aum en t th at he di d

no t wan t th e of

fic ers “ to te ar up th e ro om , th at [Ri os was ] res po ns ib le fo r th e ro om .”

In th e ro om , De te ct iv e Aum en t fo un d a g l as s sm ok in g pi pe th at Ri os sa id he

ha d b ecau se he “ us ed to sm ok e m ari juan a on ce.” Aum en t al so fo un d a small b la ck

fir ep ro of sa fe an d “ so m e sm al l ba gg ie s th at were

. . . co ns is te nt wit h na r c o t i c s

di st rib ut io n.” Aum en t as ke d Ri os if he ha d th e ke y to th e sa fe, an d Ri os rep li ed th at

he ha d lo st it a f

e w d a ys e arl ie r. Ri os sa id th at ev erythi ng in th e ro om be lo ng ed to

hi m

. Aum en t as ke d Ri os if he co ul d op en th e sa fe us in g a sc rewd riv er or a po ck et

kn ife

. Ri os di d no t ag ree to th at

, an d to ld Aum en t to ge t a se arch warra nt

. Ri os to ld

Aum en t t ha t t he re were “ jus t s om e p ap ers ” in th e sa fe. Aum en t p ic ke d u p t he saf e,

tu rn ed it on it s si de

, an d he ard “ a ve ry la rg e cl un k no t con si st en t with pa pe rs .” The

ob ject in si de so un de d li ke m et al an d “ fro m th e so un d ap pe ared to be fai rly la rg e.”

At t ha t p oi nt , Detec ti ve Aum en t o bt ai ne d a sea rch warran t fo r th e en ti re ro om

.

The se arch warra nt a f

fid av it rel ay ed th e ci rcu m st an ces le ad in g up to an d

su rro un di ng th e in it ia l sear ch

, de sc rib ed Ri os ’s co ns en t to a se arch of t he roo m an d

wha t Aum en t ha d fo un d th ere, an d req ue st e d a s e a r c h warra nt fo r th e ho te l ro om

be c a u s e th ere was pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es an d ot he r

4rel at ed ev id en ce wou ld be fo un d in th e ro om

. The se arch warra nt au th or iz ed of fic ers

to se arch th at ro om an d to se iz e, am on g ot he r th in gs , “ co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es [;]

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e res id ue ”; eq ui pm en t “ us ed or reas on ab ly be li ev ed to ha ve be en

us ed to cu t, weig h[ ,] pa ck ag e, st or e[,] an d tra ns po rt co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es ”; an d

“ fir earm s, fi rear m s ac ces so rie s, am m un it io n[ ,] or f

ire arm s s to rag e d ev ic es .”

Dete ct iv e Aum en t r et ur ne d to th e ho te l to ex ecu te th e se arch warra nt an d

co nd uc t a th or ou gh se arch of t h e ro om

. Aum en t an d an ot he r de te ct iv e us ed a

sc rewd riv er t o p ry op en th e sa fe. In si de , Aum en t fo un d a lo ad ed fir earm , a sc al e, a

sm ok in g pi pe wit h res id ue , an d two po uc he s or zi pp ered ba gs , wit h “ a n um be r of

in di vi du al ly bag ge d b ag gi es ” la te r co nf irmed to co nt ai n m et ha m ph et am in e.

At tri al

, th e is su e of Ri os ’s refu sa l to co ns en t to op en th e sa fe cam e up se ve ral

ti m es

. Fi rs t, du rin g th e red ire ct po rti on of Dete ct iv e Aum e n t ’s te st im on y , Aum en t

te st ifi ed th at aft er Ri os to ld Aum en t th at he ha d lo st th e ke y to th e sa fe, Aum en t as ke d

hi m if he co u l d pr y it op en , an d Ri os to ld Aum en t th at he wou ld “ ne ed to ge t th at

se arch warra nt .” The n, in cl os in g arg um en t, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue d th at “ [t]he m os t

te ll in g wor ds ” of th e tri al were, “ [n ]ow y ou ’re go in g to ha ve to ge t a se arch warra nt .”

The go ve rn m en t cl ai m ed th at Ri os al lo wed th e po li ce to se arch th e ro om be cau se he

di d no t want th em to ge t a sea rch warran t an d fi nd th e co nt en ts of t he saf e, an d t ha t

by req ui rin g th e of

fic ers to ge t a se arch warra nt

, in ad di ti on to sa y in g th at ev erythi ng

5in th e ro om be lo ng ed to hi m , Rio s s ho wed th at he po ss es se d t he m et ha m ph et am in e

an d th e f i rear m

. Fi na ll y , in cl os in g arg um en t reb ut ta l, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue d th at

Ri os kn ew th at if t he po li ce g ot a se arch warran t, h e wou ld be in tro ub le

.

Turn in g to Ri os ’s cl ai m s, we fir st are un pe rs ua de d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d

in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s. Co ns en t to a warra nt le ss se arch is vo lu nt ary if it

is “ th e pr od uc t of an es s e n ti al ly free an d un co ns tra in ed ch oi ce.” Uni te d St at es v.

Garci a, 89 0 F.2 d 35 5, 36 0 (1 1t h C i r

. 19 89 ). The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of

pr ov in g th at co ns en t was vo lu nt ary. Uni te d St at es v. Ch em al y , 74 1 F.2 d 13 46

, 13 52

(1 1t h C i r

. 1 9 8 4)

. The to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces m us t be co ns id ered whe n

rev ie win g th e vo lu nt ari ne ss of co ns en t. Id

. Alt ho ug h no on e fact or is di sp os it iv e, we

co ns id er fa ct or s s uc h a s t he

vo lu nt ari ne ss of th e de fen da nt ’s cu st od ia l st at us , th e pr es en ce of [ex pr es s or im

pl ie d] c oe rci ve po li ce pr oc ed ur e, th e ex te nt an d le ve l of

t h e d efen da nt ’s co op erat io n wit h po li ce, th e de fen da nt ’s aware ne ss o f
hi s rig ht to refu se to co ns en t to th e se arch

, th e de fen da nt ’s ed uc at io n an d
in te ll ig en ce, an d, si gn ifi can tl y , th e de fen da nt ’s be l i e f th at no in cri m in at in g e vi de nc e wil l b e fo un d.

Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

W e m us t al so c o n s i d e r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces whe n de te rm in in g

“ whe th er th ere were an y li m it at io ns pl aced on th e co ns en t gi ve n an d whe th er th e

se arch co nf

or m ed to th os e li m it at io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Bl ak e, 88 8 F.2 d 79 5, 79 8

6(1 1t h Ci r. 19 8 9 )

. The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of sh owi ng th at it s se arch was

wit hi n th e sc op e of th e co n s e n t

. I d

. at 80 0. “ W he n an in di vi du al gi ve s a ge ne ral

st at em en t of co ns en t wit ho ut ex pr es s li m i t a t i o n s , ” th e bo un ds of th e se arch are

“ co ns tra in ed by th e bo un ds of reas on ab le ne ss ” ba se d on “ wha t th e pa rti es kn ew at th e

ti m e to be th e ob

ject of th e se arch .” Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z, 94 9 F.2 d 11 17

, 11 19

(1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

The Fo ur th Am e n d men t req ui res th at th ere be pr ob ab le cau se to ob ta in a

warra nt an d th at warra nt s “ pa rti cu la r l y d e s c r ib [e] th e pl ace to be se arch ed

, an d th e

pe rs on s or th in gs to be se iz ed .” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. “ Pro ba bl e cau se to su pp or t

a se arch warra nt ex is ts whe n th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces al lo w a co nc lu si on th at

th ere is a fai r pr ob ab il it y of fin di ng co nt rab an d or ev id en ce at a pa rti cu la r lo cat io n.”

Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne ll i, 45 4 F.3 d 13 00

, 13 07 (1 1t h Ci r. 2006 ) (q uot at ion om it te d)

.

The de s c r ip ti on m

us t al lo w an of

fic er, “ wit h reas on ab le effo rt[

, to ] as cert ai n an d

id en ti fy th e pl ace in te nd ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Ell is

, 97 1 F

. 2d 70 1, 70 3 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 92 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . Furt he rm or e,

[a] lawfu l s earc h o f fi xe d p rem is es ge ne ral ly ext en ds to th e en ti re area in whi ch th e ob

ject of th e se arch m ay be fo un d

. . . . Thu s, a warra nt th at

au th or iz es an of

fic er to se arch a ho m e fo r il le ga l weap on s al so pr ov id es

au th or it y to op en cl os et s , ch es ts

, dr awers , an d co nt ai ne rs in whi ch th e
weap on m ig ht be fou nd

.

7Uni te d St at es v. Ro ss , 45 6 U.S. 79 8, 82 0- 21 (1 98 2) (fo ot no te om it te d)

. “ [A] warra nt

to se arch a sp eci fic area fo r a cert ai n cl as s of th in gs au th or iz es go ve rn m en t ag en ts to

br eak op en lo ck ed co nt ai ne rs whi ch m ay co nt ai n th e ob jects of th e se arch .” Uni te d

St at es v. J ack so n, 1 20 F.3d 12 26 , 12 28 -2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

On th e reco rd be fo re us , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g Ri os ’s m ot io n

to su pp res s. As an in it ia l m at te r, Ri os vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d to th e in it ia l se arch of

hi s ho te l ro om , an d th is co ns en t, as t h e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces sh ows , was

“ es se nt ia ll y [a] free an d un co ns tra in ed ch oi ce.” Garci a, 89 0 F.2 d at 36 0. Fo r st art ers ,

Ri os was no t in cu st od y

. Ch em al y , 74 1 F.2 d at 13 52

. A l t h o u gh Ri os di d no t

co o p erat e wit h th e of

fic ers by im m ed ia te ly op en in g th e ho te l ro om do or an d

id en ti fy in g hi m se lf as he was as ke d to do

, on ce he deci de d to co ns en t to th e se arch

,

he op en e d t h e do or to al lo w th e of fic ers in to th e ro om

. See id

. The ev id en ce al so

sh owe d th at Ri os was aware of hi s rig ht to refu se to co ns en t to th e se arch be cau se he

twi ce ex erci se d t ha t ri gh t -- Rio s o rig in al ly refus ed to co ns en t t o t he sea rch , and he

wit hd rew h is co ns en t t o s earc h o nc e th e o ffi cers ask ed to op en th e sa fe. See id

.

In ad di ti on , th e of

fic ers di d no t co erce Ri os in to co ns en ti ng to th e se arch

. See

id

. Rat he r, Dete ct iv e Aum en t te st ifi ed th at aft er Ri os co ns en te d, he as ke d Ri os if he

was cert ai n th at he wan te d to co ns en t, an d Ri os st at ed th at he was

. Unt il th at po in t,

Ri os ha d th e la tc h o n t h e d o o r , bu t aft er he co ns en te d to th e se arch

, he op en ed th e

8do or to al lo w th e of fic ers in to th e ro om

. Alt ho ug h Aum en t to ld Ri os th at if he di d no t

co ns en t, th e of

fic ers wou l d s e e k a s e arch warra nt an d se cu re th e ro om , th ere is no

ev id en ce th at th is st at em en t ro se to th e le ve l of co erci on

. In de ed

, in Garci a, we he ld

th at th e co ns en t was vo lu nt ary whe re th e de fen da nt co ns en te d aft er be in g arre st ed in

th e pr es en ce of fo u r t e e n a g e nt s; th e ag en ts co nd uc te d a se cu rit y swe ep of th e

de fen da nt ’s ho m e; th e ag en ts refu se d t o a ccep t t he de fen da nt ’s con se nt to a li m it ed

se arch ; an d t he ag en ts to ld th e d efen da nt th at if h e ref us ed to co ns en t t o th e se arch

,

th ey wou ld ap pl y fo r a se arc h w a rran t an d se arch hi s ho m e. 89 0 F.2 d at 36 0- 61

.

And , un li ke th e o ffi cers in Tov ar-R ic o, wh o c on du ct ed a pr ot ect iv e swe ep of ev ery

ro om wit h th ei r gu ns dr awn be fo re as ki ng fo r co ns en t to se arch , t he of fic ers in th is

cas e m erel y st at ed

, fro m ou ts id e of th e ho te l ro om , th at if Ri os di d no t co ns en t, th ey

wou l d se ek a se arch warra nt an d se cu re th e ro om

. 61 F.3 d at 15 35

. The re was no

ev id en ce he re th at th e of

fic ers ha d th ei r gu ns dr awn , th at th ey pe rfo rm ed a pr ot ect iv e

swe ep be fo re as ki ng for

co ns en t, o r th at th ey

th reat en ed Rio s i n a ny m an ne r.

Nor di d th e of

fic ers ’ se arch of th e h o t e l ro om ex ceed th e sc op e of Ri os ’s

co ns en t. The on ly li m it at io n Ri os pl aced on hi s co ns en t was th at he di d no t wan t th e

o f f i c e r s “t o te ar up th e ro om , [b ecau se he was ] res po ns ib le fo r th e ro om .” No

ev id en ce sh owe d th at th e of fic ers in an y way da m ag ed th e ho te l ro om

. W he th er Ri os

st at ed th at th e of

fic ers co ul d “ se arch ” hi s ro om or th at th ey co ul d “ ch eck ” hi s ro om ,

9a reas on ab le po li ce of fic er wou ld ha ve be li ev ed th at Ri os was al lo win g hi m to se arch

fo r na r c ot ic s in si de th e dr awers , lu gg ag e, an d ot he r co nt ai ne rs

. See Mar ti ne z, 94 9

F.2 d at 11 19

. Ri os kn ew th at th e of fic ers were at hi s ro om be cau se of su sp i c i o n s

reg ard in g dr ug act iv it y , a n d Aum en t sp eci fic al ly as ke d if Ri os wou ld al lo w th e

of fic ers “ to se arch th e ro om fo r na rco ti cs .” Bec au se bo th Ri os an d th e of fic ers kn ew

th at th e s earc h was fo r na rco ti cs , Aum en t reas on ab ly co ns tru ed Ri os ’s co ns en t “ as

pe rm is si on to se arch an y co m pa rtment or co nt ai ne r wit hi n th e [ro om ] whe re na rco ti cs

[co ul d h av e b een ] fo un d.” Id.

Mo reo ve r, th e se arch warra nt was su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se

. In th e se arch

warra nt affi da vi t, Aum en t de sc rib ed th e gl as s m ari juan a pi pe , pa ck s of sm al l ba gg ie s,

cel l ph on es , l ap to p co m

pu te rs , a nd th e sa fe t ha t h e fo un d i n h is in it ia l s earc h o f th e

ho te l ro om

. The affi da vi t al so de sc rib ed th e “ cl un ki ng ” no is e th at Aum en t he ard

whe n he sh oo k th e sa fe an d Ri os ’s st at em en ts th at he ha d lo st th e ke y to th e sa fe an d

th at Aum en t wo ul d n eed a se arch warran t t o op en th e sa fe. Thu s, the to ta li ty of th e

ci rcu m st an ces , as Aum en t de sc rib ed th em in th e se arch warra nt affi da vi t, su pp or te d

th e co nc lu si on th at th ere was a fai r pr ob ab il it y of fin di ng co nt rab an d or ev id en ce in

th e h ot el roo m . Mart in el li , 45 4 F .3d at 1 30 7.

Add it io na ll y , th e se arch warran t i ts el f de sc rib ed th e lo cat io n of t he ho te l an d

sp eci fic di rect io ns to th e ro om to be se arch ed

, in cl ud in g th e ro om nu m be r. It

10au th or iz ed of fic ers to se arch th at ro om an d to se iz e, am on g ot he r th in gs , “ co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc es [;] co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e res id ue ”; eq ui pm en t “ us ed or reas on ab ly be li ev ed

to ha ve be e n us ed to cu t, weig h[ ,] pa ck ag e, st or e[,] an d tra ns po rt co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc es ”; an d “ fir earm s, fi rear m s acces so rie s, am m un it io n[ ,] or fir earm s s to rag e

de vi ces .” The refo re, th e warra nt it se lf su ffi ci en tl y de sc rib ed th e pl ace to be se arch ed

,

an d su ffi ci en tl y de sc rib ed th e th in gs to be se iz ed

. See U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. And

,

be c a u se th is was a “ la wfu l se arch of fix ed pr em is es ” fo r co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es an d

fir earm s, th e of

fic ers ha d th e au th o r i t y t o op en th e lo ck ed sa fe. Ro ss , 45 6 U.S. at

82 0- 21 ; se e al so Ja ck so n, 12 0 F.3 d at 12 28 -2 9. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

err i n d en y in g R io s’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

W e al so reject Ri os ’s arg um en t th at hi s Fo ur th an d Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht s

were vi ol at ed whe n th e go ve rn m e n t c o m m en te d at tri al on hi s refu sa l to co ns en t to

t h e s e a r ch of th e sa fe fo un d in th e ho te l ro om

. The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot e c t s

ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es

. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. Fo u r t h

Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n is av ai la bl e whe n a de fen da nt (1 ) ha s a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n

of pr iv a cy , an d (2 ) so ci et y reco gn iz es th at ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy as reas on ab le

.

Uni te d St at es v. W ha le y , 77 9 F.2 d 58 5, 59 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 86 ). The Fi fth Am en dm en t

pr ov id es pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t se lf- in cri mina ti on

. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. V. W hi le

“ [v ]olu nt eere d st at em en ts

. . . are no t ba rred by th e Fi fth Am en dm en t” an d are

11a d mi s s i b l e , Mi ran da v. Ariz on a, 38 4 U.S. 43 6, 47 8 (1 96 6)

, th e Fi fth Am en dm en t

pr ohi bi ts th e go ve rn m en t fro m co m m en ti ng on a de fen da nt ’s refu sa l to te sti fy be ca use

su ch a co m

m en t “ is a pe na lt y im

po se d by co ur ts fo r ex erci si ng a c o n st it ut io na l

pr iv il eg e.” Grif

fin v. Cal ifo rn ia

, 38 0 U.S. 60 9, 61 4 (1 96 5)

. The go ve rn m en t is al so

res tri c te d in th e co m

m en ts it m ay m ak e reg ard in g a de fen da nt ’s in vo cat io n of hi s

rig ht to rem ai n si le nt aft er be in g arre st ed

. See Doyle v

. O h i o , 4 2 6 U.S. 61 0, 61 1

(1 97 6) (h ol di ng th at th e go ve rn m en t’s u s e o f a de fen da nt ’s po st -arr es t si le nc e to

im pe ach th e de fen da nt ’s tri al te st im on y vi ol at ed th e de fen da nt ’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s)

.

W e h av e n o c as e la w th at sq ua rel y an swe rs th e qu es ti on be fo re u s -- whet he r

it is a vi ol at io n o f th e Fo ur th or F ift h Am en dm en ts fo r th e go ve rn m en t to co m m en t

at tri al o n a d e f

e n da nt ’s r efu sa l to co ns en t to a warra nt le ss se arch

. Bu t ev en if we 2

were to as su m e, arg ue nd o, th at it was im pr op er fo r th e go v e r n men t to co m m en t at

tri al on Ri os ’s refu sa l to co ns en t t o t h e se arch of th e sa fe, we ne ed no t reac h th e

Moreove r, our sister c ircuits are split on t he issue. The Third and Ninth Circuits have 2 both expl icitly

held that it is im proper

for a prosec utor to comment on a de fenda nt’s ref usal to
consent. United States v. Tha me, 846 F.2d 200 ( 3d Cir. 1988); United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343 ( 9th Cir. 1978). The F ifth and Seventh Circuits have either a ssumed that such a comment would be imprope r or he ld that such a c omment “may ” have been imprope r, but ultimately

found the e rror

harmless. United States v. Runy an, 290 F .3d 223, 249 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Moreno, 233 F .3d 937, 941 (7th Cir. 2000). The Te nth Circuit, parsing the issue
more fine ly , noted “that a sking a jury to draw a dverse infere nces f rom” a defe ndant’s re fusal to

consent to a se arc h “may

be impermissible if the testimony is not admitt ed as a

fair r esponse to a claim by the def endant or for some othe r prope r purpose ,” United States v. Dozal, 173 F .3d 787, 794 (10th Cir. 1999) (e mphasis added) , while the F ourth Circuit has found this kind of comment admissible to respond to a def endant’ s claim that the police pla nted evidenc e. United States v.

McNa tt, 931 F.2d 251, 257-58 (4th Cir. 1991).

12qu es ti on , be cau se th e go ve rn m en t ha s sh own th a t t h e erro r, if an y , was ha rm le ss

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Gari , 57 2 F .3d at 1 36 2.

As the reco rd sh ows , Detec ti ve Aum en t t es ti fie d t ha t wh il e h e was se arch in g

th e ro om , Ri os in di cat ed th at ev erythi ng in th e ho te l ro om be lo ng ed to hi m (ev en

th ou gh th ere were so m e it em s of wom en ’s cl ot hi ng fo un d in th e ro om ), an d in de ed

,

twi ce exer ci se d hi s ri gh t t o re fu se to co ns en t to th e se arch -- firs t of the ho te l roo m ,

an d la te r of th e sa fe. Aum en t fo un d a sa fe in on e of th e du ffel ba gs in th e ro om

. The

sa fe was lo ck ed

, an d Ri os to ld Aum en t th at he ha d lo st th e ke y to th e sa fe a few da y s

earl ie r, an d th at Aum en t wou ld on ly fin d pa pe rs in th e sa f e

. I n o t h e r wor ds

, Ri os

ne ve r di sc la im ed own ers hi p of th e sa fe to Aum en t; rat he r, he cl ai m ed to own it (al on g

wit h eve ry th in g els e in th e ro om ), to kn ow its co nt en ts , and to ha ve rece nt ly los t its

ke y -- whi ch

, co m

bi ne d to ge th er, pr ov id es ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce th at Ri os tre at ed

th e sa fe as hi s, an d ha d do m in io n an d co nt ro l ov er it

. As a r e s u l t

, t h e r e w a s no

rev ers ib le erro r he re be cau se ev en wit ho ut Ri os ’s st at em en t th at Aum en t wou ld ha ve

to ge t a se arch warra nt

, th e res t of th e ev id en ce in tro du ced at tri al m ak es it “ ap pe ar[]

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t” th at Ri os ha d po ss es se d th e sa fe an d it s co nt en t s, an d

13th us th at “ th e erro r co m pl ai ne d of di d no t co nt rib u t e t o t h e ve rd ic t ob ta in ed .” Id

.

(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. 3

Fi na ll y , w e f

i n d n o m eri t in Ri os ’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y

ap pl ie d a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) be cau se th e fir earm

was fo un d in a lo ck ed sa fe to whi ch Ri os di d no t ha ve th e ke y

. “ Pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1 .1(b )(1 ), if a de fen da nt po ss es se d a da ng ero us weap on du rin g a dr ug -tr af fi ckin g

o ffen se , hi s of

fen se le ve l sh ou ld be in crea se d by two le ve ls .” Uni te d St a t e s v

.

Aud ai n, 25 4 F.3 d 12 86

, 12 89 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). The go ve rn m en t ha s th e b u r d en to

de m on st rat e th e pr ox im it y of th e fir earm to th e si te of th e ch a r g e d of fen se by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. Uni te d St at e v. Hall

, 46 F.3 d 62

, 63 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 95 ).

If th e go ve rn m en t su cces sf ul ly m eet s it s in it ia l bu rd en , th e ev id en ti ary bu rd en sh ift s

to th e d efen da nt , who m

us t de m on st rat e th at a co nn ect io n b et ween th e weap on an d

th e of fen se was “ cl earl y im

pr ob ab le .” Id

. In Ph am , we he ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at an un lo ad ed fir earm “ fo un d in a [lo ck ed ] sa fe co nt ai ni ng

m ari juan a a n d dr ug pa rap he rn al ia ” was “ po ss es se d du rin g co nd uc t rel ev an t to th e

of fen se of c on vi ct io n.” 46 3 F .3d at 1 24 1, 1 24 6.

Moreove r, Rios’s ref

usal to consent to the sea

rch of the safe was not introduce d at trial 3

until re-dire ct examination, after Rios’s cr oss-examination of Aument, in which Rios’s questions

sug g ested that other

people c ould have owne d the safe . See Dozal, 173 F.3d at 794 (holding tha t it was not an abuse of discre tion to admit t he def endant’ s statements ref

using c onsent to sear ch
beca use they wer e introduce d “for

the prope r purpose of establishing dominion and control over the pre mises where a lar g e par t of the coc aine wa s found”)

.

14Th e d i s tri ct co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in ap pl y in g th e § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) fir earm s

en ha nc em en t in th is cas e. The ev id en ce at Ri os ’s tri al sh owe d th at th e lo ad ed fir earm

was fo un d in th e sa m e sa fe as th e m et ha m ph et am in e; a sc al e; a sm ok in g pi pe

“ co m m on ly us ed fo r sm ok in g, or in ge st in g, m et ha m ph et am in e”; ba gg ie s; an d ru bb er

ba nd s. The bu rd en th en sh ift ed to Ri os to sh ow th at a co nn ect io n be twee n th e fir earm

an d th e dr ug tra ffi ck in g of

fen se was “ cl earl y im

pr ob ab le .” Hall

, 46 F.3 d at 63

. The

o nl y ev id en ce th at Ri os pr es en te d to sh ow th at th e co nn ect io n be twee n th e l o a d e d

fir earm an d th e dr

ug tra ffi ck in g of

fen se was cl earl y im

pr ob ab le was th e fact th at th e

sa fe was lo ck ed an d th at Ri os di d no t ha ve th e ke y to th e s a fe. Bu t we reject ed a

si m il ar arg um en t in Ph am , 46 3 F.3 d at 12 41

, 12 46

. F u r t h erm or e, th e reco rd be li es

Ri os ’s cl ai m th at th e gu n was in acce ss ib le

. Alt ho ug h Ri os di d no t ha ve th e ke y to th e

sa fe, Aum en t te st ifi ed th at th e s a f e “wa s ve ry si m

pl e to pr y op en ” us in g a

sc rewd riv er. The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y er r i n ap pl y in g th e §

2D1 .1(b )(1 ) se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

AFFIRMED.

15