1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Jun e 28, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 6092 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 EL RICO C UM MIN GS, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF OTER O C OUN TY 11 Jam es Wa ylo n C ou nt s, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Er an Sharon, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 Santa Fe , N M 15 for Appellee 16 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 17 Allison H. Jaram illo, Assistant Appellate D efender 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VA NZ I, C hief Jud ge. 3 { 1} Fo llo w ing e ntr

y of ac ondi tio na l pl ea , D ef

en dant E l R ic o C um

m ing s a ppe al s 4 his co nvi ct ion s f

or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m by af el on, c ontrary

to N MS A 197 8, 5 Se ct ion30- 7- 16( A ) (2 001) , a nd r ec ei vin g st ole n pr ope rty , co ntr ar y to N MS A 197 8, 6 Se ct ion 30- 16- 11( A ) (2 006)

. D ef en dant ar gue s th at

( 1) his c onvi ct ion s vi ola te double 7 j eopardy

because they

are based on the sam e firearm , and (2) the district court err ed 8 in deny ing hi s m otion to supp ress b ecause an officer exceeded th e sco pe of the searc h 9 warrant when he forcibly opened a locked safe. Beca use we hold that (1) there wa s 10 no d oubl e jeopar dy

vio la tio n and ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing 1 1 D e f e n d a n t ’s mo t i o n t o s up p r e s s , w e a f f i rm. 12 BACKGRO UND 13 { 2} The per

tinent facts are undis puted. On June 9, 2013, the A lam ogordo Po l i ce 14 D ep ar tm en t obt ai ne d an d se rv ed ana rr es t w ar rant and a se ar chw ar

rant o n D ef

en dant 15 at his hom e as part of an inves t i g at i on int o a shooti ng. Relevant here , the search 16 warrant—th e validity of w hich is no t dispu ted—authorized pol ice to searc h 17 D ef en dant’ s ho m e fo r fi re ar m s, a m m uni tio n, w ea

pons or too ls, cel l phone s, 18 pr es cr ipt ion an d ille ga l nar co tic s and par ap he rn al ia , doc um en ta tio n of the pr em ise s, 19 an d r ec or ds a s to the sta te of m ind of the sub j ec ts o f the w ar

rant, inc lud ing diari es or2

1 j our na ls. T he part ie s a gr ee that the se ar ch warrant d id n ot s pe ci fi ca lly m en tio n a 2 lockbo x or a safe

. 3 { 3} At the hear ing on De fendant’ s m otion t o suppress, an office r testified that 4 w h i l e s e a r c h i n g t h e h o u s e , h e f o u n d a l o c k e d s a f

e t h a t w a s l a r g e e n o u g h to h olda 5 fi re ar m . A cc or din g to the of

fi ce r, w he n he was “ handl ing the sa fe , ” it soun de d li ke 6 it ha d am et al obj ec t i nsi de a nd h ad som e w ei ght

to it. N ei the r D ef

en dant n or

his 7 sis te r ga ve pe rm iss ion to the of fi ce rs to se ar ch the sa fe , an d ne ith er D ef en dant n or

his 8 sis te r ha d a ke y

to the sa fe a va ila

ble

. D ef en dant l at er

te sti fi ed that he ke pt p ri va te 9 thi ngs in h is s af

e, suc h a s bank s ta te m en ts and i de nti ty doc um en ts , inc lud ing bir th 10 cert ifi cat es an d s oc ia l s ecu rit y nu m be rs . 11 { 4} T he of

fi ce r re m ove d th e sa fe to the pol ic e sta tio n f or f urthe r inv es tig at iona nd 12 ope ne d it

the re . A lth oughthe of

fi ce r did not obt ai n a se co nd s earc h w ar rant, he 13 te sti fi ed tha t he co uld ha ve done so, an d he c onc ed ed that the re w er e not

oth er w ise 14 an y e xig en t cir cu m stanc es . T he of fi ce r did not fi nd the gun tha t he w as loo kin g f or 15 in si de th e sa fe, b ut in st eadfou nd a di ffer en t fi rear m th atfor m edth e b as is forth e two 16 charges against De fendant for possessio n of a fir earm by a felon and rece iving stolen 17 pr ope rty . D ef

en dant e nte re d a no con te st ple a to both ch ar ge s, re se rv ing his r igh t t o 18 ap pe al th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s.3

1 DISC US SION 2 Doub le Jeopardy 3 { 5} D ef

en dant f ir st argues that, be ca

use the y a re ba se d onthe sa m e fi re ar m , his 4 co nvi ct ion s f

or f el on i n po sse ssi on of a fir earm a nd r ec ei vin g st ole n pr ope rty vio la te 5 doub le j eo pardy . D ef

en dant d id no t res er

ve adouble j eo pardy

a rg um en t i n hi s 6 co ndi tio na l pl ea . N ev er the le ss, double j eo pardy

c la im s ar e not

sub j ec t t o w ai ve r an d 7 can be rai se d a t an y ti m e be fo re or aft er en try of a jud gm en t. See N MS A 197 8, § 30

- 8 1- 10 (1 9 6 3 )

. M o r e o v e r , t h i s C o u rth a s h e l dt h a tag u i l t y p l e ad o e s n o tn e c e s s a r ily 9 w ai ve a cl ai m of doub le j eo pardy , al tho ugh the de fe ndant s houl d r es er ve the iss ue in 10 the ple a ag re em en t and m ust pr es en t a

r ec or d c ap ab le of

r ev ie wf or th is Co urt t o 11 en ga ge in a uni tary

c ondu ct double j eo pardy

a na ly sis

. See State v. Sanchez , 199 6- 12 N MC A -0 89, ¶

¶ 10- 11, 14, 122 N
. M. 280 , 923 P
. 2d 1 165. 13 { 6} W e ge ne ra lly ap ply a de nov o st an dard of r ev ie wto the c onst itu tio na l qu es tio n 14 of whet he r th ere h as be en a d o u b l e jeop ard y vi ol at io n. Sta te v . A ndaz ola , 200 3- 15 NMC A- 146, ¶ 14, 134 N. M. 710, 82 P. 3d 77 . The Double Jeopardy Clause “ has been 16 held to in corporate a broad and general coll ec t i o n of protections agains t several 17 co nc ep tua lly

se parate kin ds of harm : (1 ) a se co nd p ro se cu tio n f or the sa m e of

fe nse 18 af te r ac qui tta l, ( 2) a se co nd pr ose cu tio n fo r the sa m e of fe nse a ft er

c onvi ct ion , a nd ( 3) 19 m ultip le punish m ents for the sam e offe nse.” State v. M onto ya , 201 3- N MS C- 020,4

1 ¶ 23, 306 P. 3d 426 (in te rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he pr es en t c as e 2 de al s w iththe que sti on o f w he the r D ef en dant ha s r ec ei ve d m

ult ipl e puni shm en ts f

or 3 the sam e offe nse. 4 { 7} For the do u b l e j eopardy prohibit ion against m

ultip le punish m ents, there are 5 tw o ty pe s of c as es : ( 1) w he n ade fe ndant i s c harg ed w ithvio la tio ns o f m

ult ipl e 6 statutes for the sam e conduct, re ferr ed to as “ doub le description” cases; and (2) w hen 7 a de fe ndant is ch ar ge d w ith m ult ipl e vio la tio ns of

the sa m e sta tut e ba se d onasin gle 8 co ur se of con du ct , refe rred to as “ un it of p ro se cu ti on ” cas es . Sta te v . D eG raf f , 200 6- 9 N MS C- 011, ¶

25, 139 N
. M. 211, 131 P. 3d 61 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). T he 10 pr es en t c as e is a

double de sc ri pti on c as e. F or suc h c as es , w e app ly

the tw o- part

te st 11 se t f orth i n Sw aff

ord v. Sta te , 1991 -N MS C- 043, ¶ 9, 112 N
. M. 3, 810 P
. 2d 1 223: ( 1) 12 w he the r the c ondu ct

is un it ary, an d ( 2) if

so, w he the r the L eg isl at ur e int en de d to 13 pu ni sh th e o ffen se s s ep arat el y . Sta te v . Silva s , 2015 -N MS C- 006, ¶ 9, 343 P
. 3d 6 16. 14 “ O nly if the fi rs t part of

the te st i s answ er ed

in the a ff irm at ive , a nd the se co nd i n th e 1 5 n e g a t i v e , w i l l t h e d o ub l e j e o p a r d y c l au s e p r o h i b i tmu l t i p l e p u n i s h me n ti n t h e s a me 16 trial.” Id

. ( int er na l quota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he S ta te c onc ed es that the 17 conduct is u nitary , so w e analy ze the sec ond p art of the Sw aff ord te st. 18 { 8} Where unitary

conduct form s the basis for m ultip le conviction s, w e “ inqu ire 19 w he the r [the d] ef

en dant h as be enpun ish ed tw ic e fo r the sa m e of

fe nse , a nd i f so,5

1 whether the Le gislature intended that result.” Id

. ¶ 11. “ Ina na ly zi ng l eg isl at ive int en t, 2 we first look to th e language of the s tatute itself.” State v. Swick, 201 2- N MS C- 018, 3 ¶ 11, 279 P
. 3d 7 47. “ If the statut e doe s no t c le ar ly pre sc ri be m

ult ipl e puni shm en ts, 4 th enthe r

ule of statut or y c onstru ct ione sta

bli she d in B l oc k

bu rg e r v . U

ni t e d Stat es , 5 284 U.S . 299 .
. . (1932) applies.” Swick , 201 2-NMS C-018, ¶ 11. U nder Blockburger , 6 w e lo ok to se e w he the r ea chstatut e re qui re s pr oof of af ac t tha t the oth er

doe s no t. 7 See Swick , 201 2-N MS C- 018, ¶ 12. Whe n in te rp re tin g va gue a nd unspe ci fi c or 8 m ult ipurp ose c ri m ina l st at

ute s, w e ap ply

am odi fi ed Blockburger

te st, w hic h a voi ds 9 a m echanical application of the elem ents test in favor of a ca se-by -case approach that 10 co ns id ers th e St at e’s le ga l t he ory of t he pa rti cu la r cas e. Se e Silva s , 201 5- N MS C- 006, 11 ¶ 14; Swick , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ 21; State v. G utierrez , 201 1- N MS C- 024, ¶ 58, 150 12 N
. M. 232 , 258 P
. 3d 1 024. 13 { 9} “ If the Blockburger test show s that one statute is su bsum ed within the other, 14 the n th e an al y sis e nds an d th e sta tut es ar e co nsi de re d th e sa m e fo r doub le j eo pardy 15 purpos es.” Silva s , 2015-NMS C-006, ¶ 12. “ If one statute re quires proof of a fact that 16 the oth er

doe s no t, the n th e Leg isl at ur e is p re sum ed

to ha ve int en de d ase parate 17 puni shm ent for ea ch statute without offending principles of dou ble j eopardy .” Id

. 18 { 10} T he pr es um

pti on tha t the L eg isl at

ur e in te nded s ep ar at e puni shm en ts i s no t 19 co nc lu si ve , ho wev er, an d “ m ay be ov erco m e b y

ot he r in di c i a o f le gi sl at iv e in te nt .”6

1 Sw aff ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶ 31. “ [W ] e m

us t turn t o tr ad iti ona l m eans o f 2 de te rm ini ng l eg isl at ive int en t: the langua ge , his tor y , an d su bj ec t of the statut es [, a nd 3 we ] m ust ident ify the particular evil sought to be addressed by each off ense.” Id

. 4 ¶¶ 31- 32. “ If

a ft er e xa m ini ng the r el ev an t i ndi ci a the le gis la tiv e int en t re m ai ns 5 am big uous , the r

ule of le ni ty r equir es us t o pr es um e tha t the L eg isl at ur e did not 6 intend m

ultip le punish m ents for the sam e conduct.” Swick , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ 13. 7 { 11} In the pr es en t ca se , D ef en dant p le d to a nd w as c onvi ct ed of both po sse ssi on o f 8 a fi re arm

b y af e l o n a n dr e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e rt y b a s e do n t h e s i n g l e g u n f ound 9 within his lo cked safe. As indicated a bove, the State c oncedes that the condu ct w as 10 uni tary . W e the re fo re tur n to w he the r the L eg isl atur e int en de d th at ade fe ndant b e 11 pu ni sh edtwi ce fo r th e sa m e o ffen se . Se e Silva s , 201 5- N MS C- 006, ¶ 11. 12 { 12} T he statut e fo r poss es sio n of af ir earm by af el on s ta te s th at “ [i ] t i s un law fu l f or 13 a fel on to rece iv e, tr an sp or t o r po ss es s an y fir earm or d es tru ct iv e d ev ic e in th is st at e.” 14 Se ct ion30- 7- 16( A ). T he statut e fo r re ce ivi ng stol en pr ope rty sta te s that “ [r ] ec ei vin g 15 sto le n pr ope rty

m eans i nte nti ona lly

to re ce ive , r et ai n or

dis pose of st ol enpr ope rty 16 know ing that i t ha s be ensto le n or be lie vin g it

ha s be ensto le n, unl es s th e pr ope rty is 17 re ce ive d, r et ai ne d or

dis pose d of

w ithint en t t o r es tor e it to the ow ne r, ” w itha 1 8 s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n s e t t i n g f o rt h t h e d e g r e e o f

f e l o n y w h e n s u c h p r o p e rt y i s af i r e a rm. 19 Se ct ion30- 16- 11( A ), ( I)

. T he statut es do n ot c le ar ly pr es cr ibe m

ult ipl e puni shm en ts,7

1 so w e ev al ua te w he the r ea chstatut e re qui re s pr oof of a fa ct tha t the oth er

doe s no t. 2 See Swick , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ ¶ 11- 12. P oss es sio n of a fir earm by af el on r equir es a 3 fi ndi ng tha t the de fe ndant b e a fe lon , w he re as re ce ivi ng a stole n fir earm doe s no t; an d 4 re ce ivi ng a

sto le n f ir earm r equir es a fi ndi ng tha t the fi re ar m re ce ive d by

the de fe ndant 5 be st ol en , wher eas po ss e s s i o n o f a fi rear m by a felo n d oe s n ot . See § 30-7-16(A); 6 § 30 -1 6- 11( A ), ( I)

. T he statut es e ach co nt ai n an e le m en t tha t the oth er doe s no t, so 7 w e w oul d ty

pic al ly pr es um e tha t the L eg isl at ur e int en de d ase parate pun ish m en t f or 8 a v io la ti on of e ach st atut e. Se e Silva s , 201 5- N MS C- 006, ¶ 12. 9 { 13} A lth oughthe statut es a re not va gue or

uns pe ci fi c, D ef

en dant n one the le ss 10 ar gue s that w e shou ld a ppl y the m odi fi ed Blockburger test based on the State’ s legal 11 th eo ry an d t he fact s o f th e pr es en t case . Sp eci fic al ly, Defen da nt arg ue s th atth e two 1 2 s t at u t e s “ s h ar e t h e e l emen tt h at [D ef en d an t ] po s s es s ed t h e [ s p ec i fi c h an d g u n ]” 13 because “ the elem ent of proo f fo r b o t h charges w as that he possess ed a particular 14 fi re ar m . . . , w hic h wa s sto le n. ” D ef en dant arg ue s, in oth er

w or ds, that e ve n th ough 15 “ [f] el on in p ossessi on ‘ will not alway s entail proof’ of possessin g a stolen f i r e a rm, 16
. . . in thi s c as e the f

ir earm pos se sse d wa s sto le n. ” W e ar e unpe rs ua de d. 17 { 14} D ef

en dant c om

pare s th e pr es en t c as e to Gutierr ez , in w hich our Suprem e Court 18 noted th at, even thoug h arm ed robbery m ay not alway s entail proof that an 19 aut om obi le wa s t a k e n , i n t h a tc a s e , i twa s r e qu i r e d b e c a u s e t h e p r o p e rt y wa s an8

1 au tom obi le , so the e le m en ts f or a rm ed r obbe ry a nd the unl aw fu l t ak ing of am otor 2 ve hi cl e we r e t h e sa m e. See 201 1- N MS C- 024, ¶ 58. H ow ev er , the c om

pari son is 3 ina ppos ite

. I n Gutierriez , a

particular obj ect w as required to have been stolen in either 4 cas e, whi ch ob

ject was , in bo th cas es , an a ut om ob il e. Se e id. I n th e pr es en t c as e, both 5 charges require the existence of a particular objec t, the firearm , but a stolen firearm 6 is r equir ed

in onl y one of the c harg es . I n othe r w or ds, a lth oughthe ha nd gu n in the 7 pr es en t c as e ha

ppe ne d to be sto le n, w hic h f ind ing w as r equir ed to c onvi ct D ef en dant 8 for r ec ei vin g st ole n pr ope rty , it doe s no t m ean th at

the handgun’ s stole n 9 ch arac te ris tic w as thus requir ed in or de r to c onvi ct

D ef en dant o f be ing af

el on i n 10 po ss es si on of a ha nd gu n. See § 30-7-16. Indeed, the fact that the handgu n was stolen 11 is irrelevant t o t h e felon in pos session charge, which is ref lected in the grand j ury 12 ind ic tm en t and the S ta te ’ s th eo ry of the c as e. T he f

act s of th e pr es en t c as e do n ot 13 re qui re us to conc lud e dif fe re ntl y . A s indic at ed ab ove , w e the re fo re pr es um e tha t the 14 Leg is la tu re i nt en de d a sep arat e p un is hm en t fo r eac h s ta tu te . Se e Silva s , 2015-NMS C15 006, ¶ 12. 16 { 15} B e c aus e t hi s pr e su m pt i oni s no tc on c l us i ve , h ow e ve r , w e tur n t o t r a di t i onal 17 m ean s o f de te rm in in g l eg is la ti ve in te nt . See Swick , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ 13. W e ha ve 18 pr ev iou sly

int er pr et ed le gis la tiv e int en t f

or both st at ute s. I n Sta te v . H

adde nham , 19 1990 -N MC A -0 48, ¶

14, 110 N
. M. 149 , 793 P. 2d 279, w e sta te d tha t “ [t ] he fe lonin9

1 poss es sio n st at

ute pr ovi de s for an en hanc ed puni shm en t in orde r to k ee p f ir earm s ou t 2 o f t h e h a n d s o f

p e r s o n s p r e v i o u s l y

c o n v i c t e da n dt o d e t e r

r e c i d i v i s m . ” I n State v. 3 W atk ins , 20 08 -NMCA- 060, ¶

17, 144 N
. M. 66, 183 P
. 3d 9 51, w e sta te d th at “ the 4 [L ] eg isl at

ur e’ s pr ovi sio n of

se parate pun ish m en t f

or r ec ei vin g asto le n f

ir ear m a s a 5 re co gni tio n th at

the dange rs to publ ic sa fe ty ar e hei ght en ed w he n a fir earm is kep t by 6 a pe rs on who ha s obta ine d it s po sse ssi on i lle ga lly

. ” D ef en dant arg ue s th at

the se 7 under ly ing pol ic ie s are the sa m e— to d et er the il le ga l po sse ssi on o f fi re ar m s by 8 “ high er r isk ind ividu als.” W e disagree. 9 { 16} A s sta te d, the em pha sis of the le gis la tiv e int en t in the fel on in po sse ssi on 10 sta tut e is o n de te rr ing re ci div ism an d “ ke ep [i ng] fi re ar m s out of the hands of

pe rs ons 11 previousl y

convicted[.] ” H

adde nham , 1 9 9 0

- N M C A

- 0 4 8 , ¶ 1 4
. I ti s n o ts i mp l y a 12 “ hig he r ri sk” ind ivi dua l tha t the L eg isl at ur e ide nti fi ed , but

spe ci fi ca lly

tho se w ith 13 pr ior c ri m ina l r ec or ds in o rde r to de te r re ci div ism
. Se e id. Co nve rs el y , the e m pha sis 14 of the le gis la tiv e int en t in the re ce ivi ng a sto le n fi re ar m sta tut e is on i nc re as ing pub lic 15 sa fe ty by hig hli ght ing that the dange r to the pu bl ic is he igh te ne d w he n in div idu al s 16 ob ta in or p os se ss fir earm s t h a t w ere o bt ai ne d i ll eg al ly. Se e W atk ins , 20 08 -NMCA17 060, ¶ 17. T he f oc us the re is not

in de te rr ing r ec idi vis m

but in pr ote ct ing the pub lic 18 fr om a sit

ua tio n t ha t conta ins heightened dange r. W e the re fo re c onc lud e tha t the 19 L eg isl at

ur e int en de d to pun ishpos se ssi on o f a fi re arm by a fe lona nd r ec ei vin g a10

1 sto le n f ir earm se parate ly , and, a s such , D ef en dant’ s conv ic tio ns d o no t vi ola te double 2 je o p a r d y. 3 Su pp re ssi on 4 { 17} D ef

en dant a lso a rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de nyin g his m oti on t o 5 supp re ss, m ai nta ini ng tha t the of fi ce r ex ce ed ed the sc ope of the se ar chw ar

rant and 6 fo rc ibl y

ope ne d a loc ke d sa fe

. “ Appe llate r ev ie wof am oti on t o su

ppr es s pr es en ts a 7 m ixed questio n of lawand fact. ” State v. Paana nen , 2015 -N MS C- 031, ¶ 10, 357 P
. 3d 8 95 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it a t i o n o mitt ed ). The app el la te co ur t “ rev ie ws 9 factual m atters with defere nce to the district c ourt’ s finding s if subs tantial evidence 10 ex ist s to sup port the m , a nd i t r ev ie w s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the law de 11 novo .” Sta te v . A lm anza r , 2014-NMS C-001, ¶ 9, 316 P. 3d 183. Beca use the facts ar e 12 no t i n d is pu te , we rev ie w th e q ue st io n d e n ov o. Se e id. 13 { 18} A s indic at ed ab ove , D ef en dant doe s not dispu te tha t the se ar chw ar rant i tse lf 14 w as va lid

—he onl y a rg ue s th at

the of fi ce r im pe rm iss ibl y

e xc ee de d th e sc ope of

the 15 w ar rant whe n he ope ne d th e loc ke d sa fe

. D ef en dant a lso a cknow le dge s th at the 16 Fo urth A m en dm en t t o th e U nit ed S ta te s C onsti tutionpe rm its the of fi ce r’ s a ct ion s. 17 In s t ead, he argues that the officer ’ s actions were im perm issib le under the greater 18 pr ote ct ion s pr ovi de d by A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 of

the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n.11

1 { 19} “ InN ewMe xic o, t h e u l t i m at e que sti on i n a ll ca se s r eg ar din g a lle ge d se ar cha nd 2 seizure violations is whether the se arch and seizure wa s re a so nable.” Sta te v . A tta wa y , 3 1994 -N MSC- 011, ¶ 20, 117 N. M. 141, 870 P.2d 103. In order to determ ine whether 4 the officer ’ s actions were rea sonable, we look to the search warr ant, w hich is required 5 to de sc rib e wit h p art ic ul ari ty the it em s t o b e se iz ed

. Se e Sta te v . Sab ee rin , 201 4- 6 N MC A -1 10, ¶

26, 336 P
. 3d 9 90; se e als o Sta te v. M all oy , 200 1- N MC A -0 67, ¶ 9, 131 7 N
. M. 222 , 34 P
. 3d 6 11 (st at ing tha t “ [a ] se ar ch w ar rant i s us ed

a s am eans t o e sta

bli sh 8 the reasonableness of an intrusion ”). 9 { 20} Inthe pr es en t c as e, w hil e se ar ch ing the hou se f or f ire arm s, bul le ts, a nd 10 am m uniti on, w hich wer e item s specified in the search w arrant for seizure, an office r 11 found a locked safe that, when he handled it, sounded lik e it had a m etal obje ct inside, 12 had som e w eight to it, and wa s large enou gh to hold a fire arm . A lthou gh the search 13 w ar rant d id n ot s pe ci fy

that a loc kbox or

asa fe w as a n it em to be se iz ed , it is a 14 container that a reasonable officer could conclude wa s likely to contain any

num ber 15 of the it em s de sc ri be d w ithp ar t i c u l ar i ty i n th e w ar rant— to w it: f ir earm s, a m

m uni tio n, 16 we ap o n s o r to ols, cell phones, prescr iptio n and illegal narcotics and paraphernalia, 17 doc um en ta tio n of the pr em ise s, an d re co rd s as to the sta te of m ind of the subj ec ts o f 18 the w ar

rant, inc lud ing diari es or j our na ls. A lth ough the co nta ine r in the pr es en t c as e 19 w as loc ke d, w e hol d th at it w as non ethe le ss r ea sona ble for the of

fi ce r to o pe n th e12

1 co nta ine r to d isc ove r w he the r it co nta ine d th e ite m s id en tif ie d w ithpart ic ularit y

in 2 the search w arrant. W e therefore conclude that the openin g of the safe did no t exceed 3 the sc ope of

the se ar chw ar

rant, a nd, a s su ch , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing 4 D ef en dant’ s m oti on t o su

ppr es s. 5 CON CLU SION 6 { 21} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s. 7 { 22} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e 10 WE CO NCUR:

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 12 EM IL J. KI EH N E, Ju dg e

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 14 D A N IE L J . GA LL EG OS , Ju dg e