2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-9-2008 

# U SA v . Ande rson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2954

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ande r s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 870. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/870NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 2954 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RA F I Q ANDE RS ON, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 02- cr - 00421) D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e B ruce W . K auff m an Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y3, 2008 B efore: R E N D E L L , S M ITH and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y9, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge . R afi q A nder s on appea l s hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of m or e than fi ve gr ams of coca i ne bas e w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(B ) a n d p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e in2

vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) . O n appea l , he ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the deni al of the mot i on t o s uppr es s and uphol d the j ury ’ s ver di ctof convi ct i on. B e c a u se w e w rite f

o r th e p a rties , w e se t o u t o n lyth o se f a c ts w h ich a re p e rtin e n t to ouranal y s i s . A nder s on w as arr es t ed athi s hom e pur s uantt o a val i d arr es tw arr anton A pr i l 2, 2002. A ft erarr es t i ng A nder s on and det ai ni ng hi m i n the r earof an A l cohol T obacc o and Fi r earm s ( “A T F”) s quad ca r , A T F agent s obt ai ned perm i s s i on fr om E ddr enna Tur ner , A nder s on’ s auntand the ow nerand co- occupa ntof the home, t o s ear ch th e h o m e . T u rn e r sig n e d a D e p a rtm e n t o f T re a su ryC o n se n t to S e a rc h F o rm . D u rin g th is s ear ch, agent s found a l ocked s afe i n A nder s on’ s r oom . T he s afe w as br oughtt o the l i vi ng r oom w her e al l of the mem ber s of the hous ehol d, w i th the exc ept i on of A nder s on, w er e gather ed. E ach de ni ed ow ner s hi p of the s afe . T he age nt s then as ked A nder s on i f he ow ned the s afe . A nder s on, w ho had noty et been r ead hi s M i r anda r i ght s , deni ed ow ner s hi p. A nder s on w as s ubs equent l yt aken t o the A T F offi ce a nd gi ven M i r anda w arni ngs . T her eaf t er , the age nt s as ked A nder s on on thr ee a d d iti o n a l o c c a sio n s if

h e o w n e d th e sa f

e ; h e d e n ied o w n e rsh ip e a c h tim e . T h e a g e n ts then forci blyop ened the safe an d d i scovered ap proxim at el y6. 1 g ram s of co cai ne b ase ( cr ack) , $1, 066 i n cas h, one l oaded ha ndgun w hos e s er i al num berhad bee n s cr at ched of f, clea r plasti c b ag g ies (w ith an d w ith o u t crack residu e), a d igit al sca le, an d A n d erso n ’s s o c ia l s e c u ri ty ca rd a n d b ir th c e rt if ic a te .W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o the under l y i ng 1 f a c tu a l f in d in g s a n d c o n d u c t p le n a ry re v ie w o f th e a p p lic a tio n o f

th e la w to th o s e f

a c ts . U n it ed S tat es v . P ere z, 28 0 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 3 O n J ul y17, 2002, a gr and j uryi n the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a r eturned an i ndi ctm entchar gi ng A nder s on w i th one countof pos s es s i on of m or e than fi ve gr ams of c o c a i n e b a s e wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) a n d o n e c o u n t o f

p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A ). A nder s on fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s the evi dence found i n the s afe . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , rea so n in g th a t th e se a rc h o f th e h o u se w a s c o n d u c ted su b jec t to val i d cons entand that , al though cons entdi d notext end t o the s ear ch of the s afe , A nder s on had aba ndoned the s afe and coul d cl ai m no pr i vacyi nt er es ti n i t . A nder s on th e n p ro c e e d e d to tr ia l a n d w a s f o u n d g u ilty o f

b o th c h a rg e s b ya ju ry. O n J une 1, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a w i thi n- gui del i nes s ent ence of 160 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm of fi ve y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, a $1, 000 fi ne, and a $200 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. A n d e rso n f iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. O n appea l , A nder s on cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatevi dence found i n the s afe s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed

1 beca us e the age nt s ’ w arr ant l es s s ear ch of hi s r oom w as conduct ed w i thouthi s cons entor exi gentci r cumst ance s and w as ther efor e unl aw ful . T hi s ar gum enti s w i thoutm er i t . T he Four th A m endmentperm i t s l aw enfor cementoffi cer s t o s ear ch a home w i thouta w arr ant4

w h e n a n in d iv id u a l w ith “ a u th o ri ty” o v e r t h e p re m is e s v o lu n ta ri ly co n s e n ts to th e s e a rc h . G e o rg ia v . R a n d o lp h , 5 4 7 U .S . 1 0 3 , 1 0 9 (2 0 0 6 ). A th ird -p a rtyh a s c o m m o n a u th o rity overpr opertyw hen he ors he has m utual us e of ora s ubs t ant i al i nt er es ti n i t . See U ni t ed St at es v. M at l ock, 415 U . S. 164, 171 n. 4 ( 1971) . E ddr ena Tur ner , a co- occupa ntof the h o m e a n d th e o n lyp a re n tal f ig u re re sid in g th e re , h a d c o m m o n a u th o rityo v e r th e p ro p e rty an d fre e a cc ess to A n d erso n ’s roo m . B ec au se sh e c o n sen ted to the s ea rch , A n d erso n ’s argum ent that the search of his bed room w as i l l egal fai l s. Second, A nder s on ar gues that , even i f the s ear ch of the hous e w as val i d, the s ear ch o f th e sa f e v io late d h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t R ig h ts. T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts pr i vacyr i ght s w her e ther e i s a s ubj ect i ve expe ct at i on of pr i vacyand s oci etyacc ept s t hat e x p e c ta tio n a s o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . C a lif o rn ia v . G re e n w o o d , 4 8 6 U .S . 3 5 , 3 9 (1 9 8 8 ). H er e, i ti s undi s put ed thatthe age nt s coul d notr el yon T urner ’ s cons entt o s ear ch the s afe and A nder s on had a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n the s afe . T he governm ent cont ends , how ever , thatA nder s on vol unt ar i l yabandone d anyi nt er es ti n the s afe thr ough hi s r epea t ed deni al s of ow ner s hi p, and, thus , i tw as nots ubj ectt o Four th A m endment pr ot ect i on, and the age nt s di d notneed a w arr antorcons entt o val i dl ys ear ch i t . See A bel v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 6 2 U .S . 2 1 7 , 2 4 1 (1 9 6 0 ). A nder s on ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng he had a bandoned the s afe beca us e hi s i ni t i al s t at ement s deny i ng ow ner s hi p of the s afe w er e s ol i ci t ed i n vi ol at i on of M i r anda a nd hi s Fi fth A m endmentr i ght s and ther efor e s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed and5

hi s pos t - M i r anda s t at ement s deny i ng ow ner s hi p s houl d al s o have be en s uppr es s ed as inv o lun taryan d the f

ruito f c o erc ive p o li ce b eh av ior. W e n ee d n o t dec ide if A n d erso n ’s init ial stat em en ts sho u ld h av e b ee n su p p resse d . E v en if th ese stat em en ts w ere s uppr es s ed, A nder s on l at err ece i ved a M i r anda w arni ng and vol unt ar i l ycont i nued t o deny ow ner s hi p orknow l edge of the s afe . T hes e l at ers t at ement s ar e admi s s i bl e and, t aken al one, cons t i tut e aba ndonm entunderA bel and j us t i fythe s ear ch of the s afe . See O r egon v . E lsta d , 4 7 0 U .S . 2 9 8 , 3 1 4 (1 9 8 5 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the e v id e n c e f o u n d in th e sa f

e is admi s s i bl e. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the deni al of the mot i on t o s uppr es s and uphol d the j ury ’ s ver di ctof convi ct i on.

_______________________