### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 18, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12547 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -002 51 -C R -W T M -4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s W I L L I A M P H I L L I P C A M P , J R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 18, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: W illia m P h illip C a m p , J r ., a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n , im p o s e d p u r s u a n t to h is
c o n d i t i o n a l g u i l ty p l e a t o b e i n g a f e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f f

i r e a r ms , i n v i o l a t i on of

18In enteringhis guilty ple a , p ur su ant t o F e d. R. C rim. P . 1 1( a)( 2) ,Co mpt on re serv e d h is 1 right to appeal the denial of his motion to s uppress the f irea rms evidenc e. 2 U . S . C . §§ 92 2( g)(1) a nd 92 4(e) (1). O n app ea l , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt 1
e r r e d by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s f i r e a r m s e vi de nc e f

ound du r i ng a w arran tless search o f a st o rag e u n i t . T h e B u reau o f A l co h o l , T o b acco , F i rearm s, a n d E x p l o si v es (“ A T F ”) co n d u ct ed th e search aft er C am p ’ s g i rl fri en d , R u th C om pt on, ga ve S p e c i a l A ge ntL oui s J . V a l oz e ve rba l c ons e nt . S pe c i a l A ge nt V a l o z e s e i z e d f

i v e f i r e a r ms ( tw o r e v o l v e r s , a s h o t g u n , a r i f l e , a n d a 9 mm s e m ia u to m a tic p is to l) , b e tw e e n te n a n d tw e lv e h ig h c a p a c ity m a g a z in e s c o m p a tib le
w i th A K - 4 7 - ty p e r i f

l e s , a n d h u n d r e d s o f

r o u n d s o f

a mmu n i t i o n . O n a p p e a l , Ca mp c ont e nds tha tC om pt on di d notha ve act u a l orobj e c t i ve l y r e a s ona bl e a ppa r e nt
a u th o r ity to g r a n t v a lid c o n s e n t to s e a r c h th e s to r a g e u n it. A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, as w el l a s c a r e f ul c ons i de r a t i on of

the p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , w e a f f i r m.

“ A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on a m ot i on t o su p p ress pr e s e nt s a m i xe d que s t i on of l aw and fact .” U n it ed S t at es v. Z apat a, 18 0 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 40 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). We a c c e p tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s a s t r u e u n l e s s th e f i n d i n g s a r e s h o wn to b e c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . I d . A ll f a c ts a r e c o n s tru e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e p r e v a i l i n g p a r ty b e lo w . U n ite d S ta te s v . B e r v a ld i, 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 2 ( 1 1 th3

C i r . 2000)
. T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a ppl i c a t i on of t h e l aw t o the f

a c t s i s r e vi e w e d de
novo. I d. T h e f ac ts re lev an t t o th e s u p p re ss io n is s u e a re u n d isp u ted . C am p ’s p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rc o n ta c te d S p e c ia l A g e n t V a lo z e a f te rC o m p t o n , C a m p ’s “liv e - in
c o m p a n io n ,” h a d r e p o r te d to th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rth a t C a m p im p r o p e r ly w a s in p o s s e s s io n o f

s e v e r a l f

ir e a r m s . T h e r e a f

te r , S p e c ia l A g e n t V a lo z e s p o k e w ith C om pt on , w ho t ol d h i m: ( 1) Ca mp ha d b ur i e d s e ve r a l f i r e a r ms be f

or e he w as in c a r c e r a te d o n f

e d e r a l c h a r g e s a n d s u b s e q u e n tly r e tr ie v e d th e m f o llo w in g h is
r e l e a s e ; ( 2) o n o r ab o utJ ul y 20, 2004, s he , C a m p, a nd hi s s on m ove d the w e a pons t o A be r c or n L oc k n’ S t or e , a s t or a ge f a c i l i ty i n S a va nnah , G e or gi a ; ( 3) a tthe
s to r a g e f a c ility , C a m p a s k e d C o m p to n to r e n t a s to r a g e u n i tin h e rn a m e f o rh im to s t or e hi s f

i r e a r m s ; ( 4) C om pt on e nt e r e d i nt o a re nt a l a gr e e m e ntt o r e nta s t or a ge un it in h er n am e; (5) C am p t hen p l ac ed the fi re arm s i n t he un i t , w hi ch he then l o c k e d , g i v i n g Co mp t o n a k e y t o th e u n i t ; a n d ( 6 ) t he f o l l o w i n g d a y , Ca mp c ha nge d the l oc k a nd r e f us e d t o gi ve C om pt on a k ey. D u r i ng he rc onve r s a t i on w i th S peci al A gentV al oze, C om pt on gave verbal consentt o sea rc h th e un i t . B as ed upon C om pt on’ s c ons e nt , S pe c i a l A ge ntV a l oz e ope ne d the s t or a ge uni ta nd f ound 5 f i r e a r m s , a n a m m uni t i on ca ni s t e rc ont a i ni ng hi gh- c a pa c i ty f e e di ng de vi c e s , a nd
o v e r1 ,0 0 0 r o u n d s o f

a m m u n itio n .4

In hi s s up pres si on m ot i on , C am p ar g u ed th atC om pt on di d n othave actual
a uthor i ty t o c ons e ntt o a s e a r c h of the s t or a ge uni tbe c a u se h e h ad so l e us e a nd cont rol of the prop er ty. H e a l so as se rt ed thatbeca use A gentV al oze knew that C om pt on d i d n o tha ve ake y t o the uni ta nd ha d nota c c e s s e d the uni ts i nc e the guns w e r e s t o red t h er e , hi s r e l i a nc e on C om pt on’ s a ppa r e nta uthor i ty t o c ons e nt
w as no tobj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. T he go vernm entdi d n otdi sput e the fa ct s a s pr e s e nt e d by C a m p, buta dde d that (1 ) the l a ndl or d ha d pl a c e d a pa dl oc k on the
u n i tb e c a u s e th e r e n twa s o v e r d u e , a n d ( 2 ) C o m p t o n a l s o h a d s t o r e d o n e o f h e ro wn g u n s in th e u n it. I n a R e por ta nd R e c om m e nda t i on ( “ R & R ”), t he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound, i nt e ra l i a , tha tC om p t o n h ad a uthor i ty t o c ons e ntt o the s e a r c h, gi ve n he rl a w f ul
r i ghtt o a c c e s s the uni tunde rthe t e r m s of th e l e a s e , a nd tha tC a m p c oul d not de pr i ve C om pt on of

he r ri g h t o f a c c e s s s i m pl y by c ha ngi ng the l oc k a nd r e f us i ng t o p rove a key, ci t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. B ac ku s, 34 9 F .3 d 1 2 9 8 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ),
ce rt. d en ied , 5 4 1 U .S . 9 5 1 (2 0 0 4 ). T h e m ag istrate ju d g e n o te d th at C o m p to n ’s
r i ghtt o a c c e s s the s t or a ge uni tw a s u n eq u i v o ca l : “ C om pt on r e t a i ne d a ta l l t i m e s the
r ig h t to e n te rth e s to r a g e u n it, e v e n i f s h e c o u ld d o s o o n ly b y c u ttin g th e lo c k .” R & R a t9. T he di s tr i c tc our tr e j e c t e d C a m p’ s a r gum e ntt h at h i s c ha nge of the l oc ks
s om e how a f

f e c t e d C om pt on’ s a c c e s s : “ D e f e nda nt ’ s s ugge s t i on tha t by l o cki ng5

C om pt on outof t h e st o ra ge uni ts om e how de pr i ve d he r‘ m utua l us e ’ or‘ c ontr ol ’ of the prop er ty w i thi n t he m ea ni ng of M at lock .
. . i s abraz en ar gu m entun supp ort ed by a ny l e ga l pr e c e de nt . ” I d. a t9- 10. O ve r C a m p’ s obj ect i o n s, t h e di s tr i c t c our t a dopt e d the R & R a nd de ni e d the
m ot i on t o su p p ress . C am p t hen ent er ed a c on di t i on al gu i l ty pl eat o t he charge,
re se rvi ng hi s r i gh tt o app ea l the rul i ng o n h i s m ot i on t o sup pres s. T he di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d C a m p t o a 46- m onth t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s a ppe a l f ol l ow e d. I t is w e ll- s e ttle d th a t, in th e a b s e n c e o f p r o b a b le c a u s e o rr e a s o n a b le
s us pi c i on, l a w en f

or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s m a y none the l e s s s e a r c h a n i ndi vi dua l w i thout
a w a r r a n t, “s o lo n g a s th e y f ir s t o b ta in th e v o lu n ta r y c o n s e n t o f th e in d iv id u a l in qu es t i on . ” U n it ed S tat es v. B l ake, 88 8 F . 2d 79 5, 79 8 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). T hi rd pa r t i e s m a y c ons e ntt o s e a r c he s w he n the y pos s e s s “ c om m on au t h o ri t y ove ror o th e rs u f

f ic ie n t r e la tio n s h ip to th e p r e m is e s o re f f e c ts s o u g h t to b e i n s p e c te d .” U ni t e d S t a t e s v . M at l o c k, 415 U . S . 164, 171, 94 S . C t . 988, 993, 39 L . E d. 2d 242 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s e x p la in e d th a t: [t ] h e au th o ri ty w h ic h j u st i fi es th e th i rd -p arty co n sen td o es n o trest upon the l a w of

pr ope r ty. . . b u tr e s t s r a the ron m utua l us e of the p ro p erty b y p erso n s g en eral l y h av in g j o i n taccess o r co n tro l fo r m o st purpos e s , s o tha ti ti s r e a s ona bl e t o r e c ogni z e t h at a ny of the c o- i nh ab i t an t s ha s the r i ghtt o pe r m i tthe i ns pe c t i on i n hi s ow n r i ght and t hatthe ot hers have as sum ed the ri sk thaton e of thei r num ber m i ghtpe r m i tthe c om m on a r e a t o be s e a r c he d.In B a c ku s, wh ic h w a s c ite d in theR& R, w ehe ld t

hat an e strang e d s po us e , who jointly 2 owned a nd occupie d a home with the de fenda nt, could provide c onsent to a sea rch of it. 349 F .3 d at 12 99 -1 30 0. Prior to p ro vidingthec on sent, thee strang e d s po us ehad f le d f ro m th efa

mily home in Miami, whereBackus had a bused her , to a shelter in Chicag o and did not return to the house for at least six m onths. I d. at 1301. She ultimately told the police about a number of illegal firea

rms that Backus had in the houseand consented to a sea rch of the house. I d. at 1302- 03. We held that the estra ng ed spouse c ould consent to the sea rch of the home, base d upon, inter alia, joint ownership of theproper ty . I d. at 1305. In reachingthis conclusion, we re jected Backus’s a

rgument, simil ar to Camp’s a rgument in the instant appeal, that chang ing thelocks aff ecte d his estrang ed wife ’s ability to consent: “if B ackus truly did not expect his wifeto return, it is hard to understand why he would havefelt it nece ssary to chang e the de adbolt lock on the door to prevent her key

from wor king in it.” I d. at 1304; see also United States v. Bertram, 805 F.2d 1524, 1528 ( 11th Cir. 1986) (holding that defendant’s wifewho had joint acc ess to marital home also had actual authority to consent to search of home ).

6 Id. at17 2 n . 7 , 9 4 S . C t. at99 3 n . 7 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i t t ed). M o r e o v e r , “e v e n if

th e c o n s e n tin g p a r t y d o e s n o t, in f a c t, h a v e th e r e q u is ite
re l at i on shi p t o t he prem i se s, there i s no F ou rth A m endm entvi ol at i on i f a n o ff i ce r has a n o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e, tho u g h m i st aken, go od -f ai th b el i ef

thathe has obt a i ne d va l i d c ons e ntt o s e a rch t he a r e a . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a z e l , 102 F . 3d 1120, 11 48 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ). H e r e , the r e w a s both m utua l us e a nd j o i n t access s uc h tha tC a m p a nd C om pt on had com m on autho ri ty o v er the st orage uni ti n w hi ch the fi re arm s w er e f o u n d , w ith in th e m e a n in g o f M a tlo c k a n d C o m p to n , a c c o r d i n g l y , c o u ld c o n s e n t to
a w a r r a n tle s s s e a r c h o f it. C o m p to n a n d C a m p b o th s to r e d p r o p e r ty in th e u n it ( m u tu a l u s e ) a n d C o m p t o n r e t a i n e d jo in t a c c e s s to th e u n it s in c e s h e w a s th e o n ly
n a m e o n th e u n it’s le a s e . T h e f a c t th a t C a m p w r o n g f

u lly lo c k e d h e ro u t o f

th e u n it di d notdi ve s the rof

he ra c tua l ora ppa r e nta uthor i ty t o c ons e ntt o a s e a r c h. 27

S i m pl y put , v i ew i ng the e vi de nc e i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the go vernm ent , the di stri ct co u rtdi d n oterr i n d et erm i ni ng thatC om pt on had “c o m m o n a u th o r ity o v e ro ro th e rs u f f ic ie n t r e l a t i o n s h ip to th e p r e m is e s o re f f e c ts s o u g h t t o b e i n s p e c te d ,” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f M a tlo c k , a n d d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f ir m C a m p ’s c o n v ic tio n . A F F I R M E D .