Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/932/752/289227/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:17:57
Document Index: 24271194

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 1512', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 1512', '§ 3156', '§ 1']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Sonnie Davis, Defendant-appellant, v. Kevin Davis, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kevin Davis, Defendant-appellee, 932 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1991) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1991 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Sonnie Davis, Defendant-appellant, v. Kevin Davis,...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Sonnie Davis, Defendant-appellant, v. Kevin Davis, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kevin Davis, Defendant-appellee, 932 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1991)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 932 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued and Submitted Jan. 18, 1991. Decided April 17, 1991. As Amended on Denial of RehearingJune 24, 1991
This case involves a conspiracy to distribute heroin and an attempt to kill a potential government witness. Sonnie Davis appeals the denial of a motion to suppress evidence supporting his conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). He argues the evidence supporting the conviction should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search. Kevin Davis appeals his conviction for attempting to prevent a witness from testifying in a federal case in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a). He contends procedural errors and a lack of sufficient evidence against him provide bases for reversing his conviction. The United States cross-appeals Kevin Davis' sentence arguing the district court failed to sentence him under the appropriate guideline. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court with respect to the appeals of Sonnie and Kevin Davis, and reverse on the sentencing issue in favor of the United States.
On June 22, 1988, Sonnie and Kevin Davis were indicted in a four-count indictment with three other persons. Count One charged Sonnie Davis, Avis Andrews, Marilyn Morrison, and other persons unknown, with conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Counts Two and Three charged Sonnie Davis, Andrews, and Morrison with possessing heroin with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Count Four charged Sonnie Davis, Kevin Davis, and Walker with knowingly attempting to kill Morrison with the intent to prevent the communication to any law enforcement officer information relating to the narcotics offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a).
Sonnie Davis argues the heroin seized from the safe at Andrews' apartment impermissibly exceeded the scope of Andrews' probation search condition. We must first determine whether Sonnie Davis has standing to assert a violation of the fourth amendment. We review "the question of whether a defendant has standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim de novo, although we review the underlying facts for clear error." United States v. Iglesias, 881 F.2d 1519, 1522 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S. Ct. 1154, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1057 (1990) (citations omitted). This circuit has not addressed the standard for reviewing a question involving the scope of a probation search. The question of whether the officers could reasonably have suspected the safe was within the custody or control of Andrews' and within the scope of her probation search condition involves a mixed question of fact and law; we review it de novo. Cf. United States v. Flippin, 924 F.2d 163, 164-65 (9th Cir. 1991) (whether a search was based on sufficient suspicion is mixed question of law and fact); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F.2d 283, 286 (9th Cir. 1988) (whether police exceed scope of a warrant reviewed de novo). But cf. United States v. Rubio, 727 F.2d 786, 797 (9th Cir. 1983) (whether the scope of consent has been exceeded is a factual question reviewed for clear error); United States v. Guzman, 852 F.2d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 1988) (unclear if question of authority to consent to a search is reviewed for clear error or de novo).
The government contests the district court's finding that Sonnie Davis had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched.2 To contest the legality of a search under the fourth amendment, the defendant must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or item searched by showing an actual subjective expectation of privacy which society is prepared to recognize. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. ----, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 1687, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1990); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1979); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 & n. 12, 99 S. Ct. 421, 430 & n. 12, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978). The defendant has the burden of establishing, under the totality of the circumstances, the search or seizure violated his legitimate expectation of privacy in a particular place. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 2561, 65 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1980).
The Supreme Court has held an overnight guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a friend's residence even though he has no legal interest in the premises and does not have legal authority to determine who may enter the household. Olson, 495 U.S. ----, 110 S. Ct. at 1688-89; see also United States v. Robertson, 606 F.2d 853, 858 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1979) (overnight guest had standing to assert fourth amendment violation in search of his possessions). This court has held that a defendant who moved a laboratory to his friend's house to avoid detection and who used that site to manufacture drugs had a legitimate expectation of privacy. United States v. Pollock, 726 F.2d 1456, 1465 (9th Cir. 1984). A defendant who was an alleged co-owner of a storage unit and had allegedly paid a portion of the rental payments even though defendant's name did not appear on the rental agreement was held to have had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. United States v. Johns, 851 F.2d 1131, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1988). Finally, in United States v. Harwood, 470 F.2d 322 (10th Cir. 1972), the court held that a defendant who stored containers in the attic of a friend's garage with the latter's permission to "come and go" to check the property had standing to challenge a search. Id. at 325; see also W. Lafave, Search and Seizure Sec. 11.3(c) at 303 (1987).
Sonnie Davis had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. He had a key to Andrews' apartment, and was free to come and go as he pleased. He stored things there, and took the precaution of storing items in a locked safe to assure privacy. Moreover, he had previously lived in the apartment, and had independent access to the place searched. It is also significant that Sonnie Davis paid at least a portion of the rent for Andrews' apartment. Having assumed an ongoing obligation to pay the rent, Sonnie Davis exercised partial or joint control over the premises. See Johns, 851 F.2d at 1136. Joint control "remains significant under the expectation of privacy standard." United States v. Quinn, 751 F.2d 980, 981 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. granted, 474 U.S. 900, 106 S. Ct. 224, 88 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1985), cert. dismissed, 475 U.S. 791, 106 S. Ct. 1623, 89 L. Ed. 2d 803 (1986). Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we hold the district court correctly found that Sonnie Davis had a sufficient connection to the invaded place to assert the protection of the fourth amendment.3
The district court concluded that the search of the safe was a reasonable extension of Andrews' search condition, and was therefore lawful. It applied both California and federal standards governing probation searches. See United States v. Solomon, 528 F.2d 88, 90 (9th Cir. 1975) (admissibility of evidence obtained by state law enforcement officer depends on legality of actions measured by both state and federal standards); United States v. Lovenguth, 514 F.2d 96, 98 (9th Cir. 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Fisch, 474 F.2d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 921, 93 S. Ct. 2742, 37 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1973).
While the federal courts may consider state precedent for its persuasive value, the validity of a search conducted by state law enforcement officers is ultimately a question of federal law. See United States v. George, 883 F.2d 1407, 1412 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Chavez-Vernaza, 844 F.2d 1368, 1372-74 (9th Cir. 1987) (evidence seized by state officers in compliance with federal law admissible without regard to state law)). For cases arising in California, the application of state standards would in any event prove redundant because the California State Constitution no longer affords independent state grounds for excluding relevant evidence. In Re Lance W., 37 Cal. 3d 873, 888-90, 210 Cal. Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744 (1985) (Constitutional amendment stating "relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding" requires exclusion of relevant evidence only if federal constitution forbids its use).
Under limited circumstances, law enforcement officers may search a probationer's home without obtaining a warrant and without probable cause. See Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 872-73, 107 S. Ct. 3164, 3167-68, 97 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1987) (upholding state regulation permitting probation search on reasonable suspicion); United States v. Duff, 831 F.2d 176, 179 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Johnson, 722 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1983); People v. Burgener, 41 Cal. 3d 505, 528-36, 224 Cal. Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251 (1986) (parole search). The permissible bounds of a probation search are governed by a reasonable suspicion standard. See United States v. Giannetta, 909 F.2d 571, 577 (1st Cir. 1990) (a search of the premises by a probation officer extends to the entire area of the premises and any container may be searched pursuant to probation search condition if reason to believe container could contain object of search); cf. Duff, 831 F.2d at 179; Toomey v. Bunnell, 898 F.2d 741, 744 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 390, 112 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990) (parole searches may be conducted without a warrant under a reasonableness standard).
We recognize that California cases draw a distinction between probationers and parolees in evaluating the permissible scope of a search. See People v. Bravo, 43 Cal. 3d 600, 608-09, 238 Cal. Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 904, 108 S. Ct. 1074, 99 L. Ed. 2d 234 (1988) (" [a] probationer, unlike a parolee, consents to the waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the opportunity to avoid service of a state prison term" and thus the reasonable suspicion standard does not apply to parolee probation searches). We do not believe the distinction between the status of parolee and that of a probationer is constitutionally significant for purposes of evaluating the scope of a search. Cf. Griffin, 483 U.S. at 874, 107 S. Ct. at 3168 (both probationers and parolees have diminished liberty rights); see generally W. Lafave, Search and Seizure, Sec. 10.10 (1987). We therefore conclude that police must have reasonable suspicion, that an item to be searched is owned, controlled, or possessed by probationer, in order for the item to fall within the permissible bounds of a probation search.
To date, no federal court has examined the issue of whether law enforcement officers conducting a probation search have a duty to inquire into the ownership, possession, or control of an item sought to be searched. California law is inconsistent on this issue. One line of cases imposes a duty to inquire when there is at best a fifty percent chance that the item sought to be searched belongs to the probationer or parolee. See People v. Montoya, 114 Cal. App. 3d 556, 562, 170 Cal. Rptr. 624 (1981) (police had duty to inquire prior to searching a pair of pants found in the parolee's house in which another person, not subject to the parole search condition, was present); People v. Tidalgo, 123 Cal. App. 3d 301, 306, 176 Cal. Rptr. 463 (1981) (" [W]here police officers do not know who owns or possesses a residence or item and such information can be easily ascertained, it is incumbent upon them to attempt to ascertain ownership...."); People v. Fuller, 48 Cal. App. 3d 257, 263, 210 Cal. Rptr. 1 (1983) (citing Tidalgo, 123 Cal. App. 3d at 306-07, 176 Cal.Rptr. 463); People v. Cruz, 61 Cal. 2d 861, 867, 40 Cal. Rptr. 841, 395 P.2d 889 (1964) (where suitcases could have belonged to someone other than consenter, officer had duty to ask whether suitcase belonged to the person who had given consent to search).
The most recent decision, People v. Boyd, 224 Cal. App. 3d 736, 274 Cal. Rptr. 100 (1990), follows a line of cases which reject Montoya's duty to inquire rule. See People v. Palmquist, 123 Cal. App. 3d 1, 12-13, 176 Cal. Rptr. 173 (1981) (police did not need to inquire into possession, ownership or control prior to searching refrigerator and ski parka in the home of a probationer who lived with a non-probationer); People v. Britton, 156 Cal. App. 3d 689, 701, 202 Cal. Rptr. 882 (1984) (search of paper bag in closet of apartment shared by parolee and nonparolee upheld where nonparolee was not present to question about the bag). In Boyd, a parole search by the police uncovered contraband in a handbag which belonged to a nonparolee. The nonparolee asserted the police's failure to inquire into the custody or control of the handbag required suppression of the evidence seized. The Boyd court rejected
Boyd, 224 Cal. App. 3d at 749, 274 Cal. Rptr. 100. We interpret Boyd as holding that the police should inquire into the ownership, possession, or control of an item sought to be searched when the totality of the circumstances do not otherwise give rise to reasonable suspicion that the item to be searched belongs to, or is under control of, the parolee. Id. at 750-51, 274 Cal. Rptr. 100.
The Boyd decision, rejecting a duty to inquire rule, is the better view. Requiring the police to inquire into ownership, possession or control in all instances when ownership, custody, or control is not obviously and undeniably apparent, would force courts to undertake the difficult task of evaluating, in every case of doubt, the nature of the measures taken and the credibility of the responses given. Moreover, such a rule does not satisfactorily accommodate the situation here, where the nonprobationer is not present to affirm or deny ownership. As the court noted in Britton, " [m]ost importantly there was someone in the house [in Montoya ] other than the parolee whom the officers could question about the ownership of the items searched." Britton, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 701, 202 Cal. Rptr. 882. We do not believe law enforcement officers should in all circumstances be bound by the responses of persons with the greatest incentive to lie about ownership, possession, or control. See Boyd, 224 Cal. App. 3d at 749, 274 Cal. Rptr. 100 ("Such a rigid rule would unnecessarily bind the officer to the answer given, regardless of its veracity."); Britton, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 701, 202 Cal. Rptr. 882 ("An officer could hardly expect that a parolee would claim ownership of an item which he knew contained contraband."). Reasonable suspicion that an item is owned, possessed, or controlled by the probationer may exist even in circumstances when the item to be searched is not obviously and undeniably owned, possessed, or controlled by the probationer. While in some circumstances, questions of ownership, possession, or control may rise to a level requiring law enforcement officers to inquire into ownership, possession, or control in order to develop the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search of the item, we do not discuss that scenario because, for the reasons set forth above, the police had reasonable suspicion to believe the safe was within Andrews' ownership, possession, or control.IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
"In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The test is whether the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from it, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, sustain the verdict." United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 278 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Soto, 779 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir.), amended, 793 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 833, 108 S. Ct. 110, 98 L. Ed. 2d 70 (1987)).
Kevin Davis was charged with obstructing or attempting to obstruct an official proceeding by shooting a known witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a). He argues there was insufficient evidence to establish his awareness of the federal nature of the proceeding with which he interfered. The district court denied appellant's motion for a new trial and judgment of acquittal, holding: "The evidence, considering all the inferences that can fairly be drawn from it, amply supports the finding that defendant shot Marilyn Morrison with the intent of preventing the communication to law enforcement officers of information concerning the commission of federal offenses." United States v. Davis, 728 F. Supp. 1437, 1441-42 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
18 U.S.C. § 1512(f). Under Sec. 1512, the United States was not required to prove the defendant knew he was tampering with a federal proceeding. United States v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Ardito, 782 F.2d 358, 360-61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1141, 106 S. Ct. 1792, 90 L. Ed. 2d 338 cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1160, 106 S. Ct. 2281, 90 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1986) (finding no scienter requirement that defendants know they were obstructing a federal proceeding). Cf. United States v. Brice, 926 F.2d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1991). Consequently, appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit.
We review the decision of the district court to deny a mistrial motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chan Yu-Chong, 920 F.2d 594, 599 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Marsh, 894 F.2d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S. Ct. 1143, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1048 (1990).
Kevin Davis asserts the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct on six separate occasions. Ordinarily cautionary instructions are sufficient to cure the effects of improper comments. United States v. Charmley, 764 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir. 1985); Marsh, 894 F.2d at 1040. Even where no curative instruction is given, or the instruction is insufficient to cure the prejudicial impact of the impropriety, the court should "not reverse a defendant's conviction if substantial, independent and credible evidence of the defendant's guilt overwhelms whatever incriminating aspects inadmissible statements may have had in isolation." Marsh, 894 F.2d at 1040. "Declaring a mistrial is appropriate only where a cautionary instruction is unlikely to cure the prejudicial effect of an error." United States v. Charmley, 764 F.2d at 677 (citing United States v. Gann, 732 F.2d 714, 725 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1034, 105 S. Ct. 505, 83 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1984)).
We review the district court's decision to deny a motion to sever for abuse of discretion. Marsh, 894 F.2d at 1040; United States v. Castro, 887 F.2d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 1989).
Kevin Davis contends the district court abused its discretion when it denied his pre-trial motion to sever his trial from that of Sonnie Davis. "In order to preserve a [severance] motion on appeal, the motion must be renewed at the close of evidence." United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 551 (9th Cir. 1989). "Failure to do so generally waives appellate review." United States v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Urrutia, 897 F.2d 430, 433 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S. Ct. 2190, 109 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1990) ("When a defendant fails to renew a motion for severance at the close of the evidence the issue is waived."); United States v. Smith, 893 F.2d 1573, 1581 (9th Cir. 1990) (appellant "waived his severance motion by not renewing it at the close of the evidence."). A severance issue will be preserved for appeal, however, absent a post-evidence renewal, where a new "motion accompanies the introduction of evidence deemed prejudicial and a renewal at the close of all evidence would constitute an unnecessary formality."7 United States v. Free, 841 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1046, 108 S. Ct. 2042, 100 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1988) (quoting United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 965 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 956, 98 S. Ct. 483, 54 L. Ed. 2d 315 (1977)). Kevin Davis acknowledges he failed to renew the severance issue at the close of evidence. Moreover, appellant failed to renew the motion at any time during trial. Renewal of the motion to sever was necessary in this instance because the district court did not indicate that a renewal would be fruitless. See United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d at 966 (the district court, before the close of evidence, indicated that a renewal would be useless). For these reasons, we hold that Kevin Davis' failure to renew the denial of his severance motion resulted in the waiver of his right to appeal.VII. IMPROPER DELEGATION/APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
We review de novo the district court's refusal to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Plesinski, 912 F.2d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 1306, 113 L. Ed. 2d 241 (1991). "The district court's refusal to disqualify the prosecutor is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Id.
Kevin Davis argues that a procedural defect in the appointment of the Special Assistant United States Attorney who appeared before the grand jury and subsequently tried the case envalidates his conviction. The circumstance underlying the appointment of the special assistant are set forth in the district court's opinion. Davis, 728 F. Supp. at 1438-40. Essentially, the special assistant, a Deputy District Attorney for the County of Alameda, was appointed as a Special Assistant United States Attorney by a letter signed by the Deputy Director of the Office of Attorney Personnel Management of the Department of Justice on June 22, 1988, the date on which he appeared before the grand jury. The alleged defect lies in the fact that there was no written delegation of that function from the Deputy Attorney General to the Office of Attorney Personnel Management at the time of the appointment.
This court recently rejected a simialr argument in Plesinski, 912 F.2d at 1038-39. Appellant seeks to distinguish Plesinski upon the ground that the prosecutor in that case ultimately took a new oath after the appointment was discovered to be defective. In the instant case, the defect was subsequently cured before trial, on February 10, 1989, when the Deputy Attorney General issued a written order validating all appointments nunc pro tunc. The manner in which the defect is cured is of no consequence so long as the defect itself did not prejudiced the appellant. See Plesinski, 912 F.2d at 1038 quoting Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 101 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1988) ('a District Court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such errors prejudiced the defendants.')
"The district court's determination of whether a given prior conviction falls within the scope of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo." United States v. Gross, 897 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Newman, 912 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 1990). We review for clear error the factual matters relating to the prior conviction. Gross, 897 F.2d at 416.
Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 4B1.2 (emphasis added). Although we are not bound to follow the application notes, United States v. Gross, 897 F.2d at 416-17, the notes do have the force of legislative history. United States v. Watt, 910 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1990).
A violation of section 11351 of the California Health and Safety Code is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Under the application note, therefore, the conviction was a "prior felony conviction." The application note is consistent with the well established federal rule that a felony is an offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year, regardless of the sentence actually imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a) (3) and former 18 U.S.C. § 1. It is also in harmony with the intent of Congress that repeat drug offenders "receive a sentence of imprisonment under the guidelines that is at or near the maximum term that is authorized by statute." United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 559 (9th Cir. 1989). We accordingly follow the application note and conclude that the district court committed clear error in failing to sentence Kevin Davis as career offender.
In addition, the district court concluded that under the rule of United States v. Issacs, 708 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 852, 104 S. Ct. 165, 78 L. Ed. 2d 150 (1983), the government was estopped from arguing that defendant was the culpable possessor of incriminating evidence, while denying that there was any expectation of privacy. We do not reach this issue because we affirm on standing grounds
The United States urges us to interpret Minnesota v. Olson as limiting standing in this context to overnight guests. Such an interpretation would be at odds with the great body of Supreme Court precedent as well as cases in this and other circuits. See, e.g., Rakas, 439 U.S. at 142, 99 S. Ct. at 430 ("We think that Jones [v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960) ] on its facts merely stands for the unremarkable proposition that a person can have a legally sufficient interest in a place other than his own home so that the Fourth Amendment protects him from unreasonable governmental intrusion into that place."). The language of Olson forecloses the United States' interpretation in any event: "We need go no further than to conclude, as we do, that Olson's status as an overnight guest is alone enough to show that he had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to ... recognize...." Olson, 495 U.S. at ----, 110 S. Ct. at 1688
The United States' reliance on Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 65 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1980), and United States v. Kovac, 795 F.2d 1509 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1065, 107 S. Ct. 951, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1987), is unpersuasive. Rawlings dealt with a defendant who dumped drugs in the purse of a third party to avoid detection by the police. Rawlings, 448 U.S. at 101, 100 S. Ct. at 2559. Unlike the parties in Rawlings, Sonnie Davis and Andrews had a long standing relationship. Sonnie Davis maintained continuous access to the house and the safe, stored possessions in the safe found in Andrews' bedroom, and placed the contraband in the safe to assure privacy.
Kovac involved the search of an automobile which defendant did not own or use regularly, and which was not readily available to him. Kovac, 795 F.2d at 1510-11. The court held " [defendant] did not have a significant connection with [the] car by which he had either an inherent or actual right to control its use and exclude others...." Id. at 1511. Kovac is distinguishable from this case. Sonnie Davis had continuous access to Andrews' apartment, and, by locking the safe, asserted the right to exclude others from the safe's contents. He possessed keys to the apartment, paid the rent, and placed the safe there. Moreover, the police observed his car in front of Andrews' apartment on the morning of the arrest. These facts suggest Sonnie Davis had a "significant connection" with the apartment. Moreover, the privacy interests associated with the home have historically been accorded greater significance than those associated with an automobile.
Appellant does not raise the question of whether police officers may conduct a probation search without authorization by a probation officer. See United States v. Richardson, 849 F.2d 439, 442 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 866, 109 S. Ct. 171, 102 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1988) (upholding a search instigated and conducted solely by police but authorized by probation officer, leaving open the possibility that a complete delegation of authority may be evidence of a subterfuge for criminal investigation). We therefore do not consider it either
It is not clear whether Kaplan espouses one exception or two. Compare United States v. Plache, 913 F.2d at 1379 (court views Kaplan as creating two separate exceptions) with United States v. Free, 841 F.2d 321 at 324 (9th Cir. 1988) (court views Kaplan as one two-part exception). We do not need to resolve this question because appellant failed to satisfy either prong of the Kaplan test