Opinion ID: 734228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authority Issue

Text: 18 Utilizing the de novo standard, we focus on Kim's argument that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the evidence found in the PSM storage locker. Kim claims that Wee had neither actual nor apparent authority to consent to a search of the containers, as he was a mere employee operating at Kim's direction. Kim analogizes their relationship to sub-lessor and sub-lessee, arguing that Kim was essentially sub-leasing the units from Wee, and that consequently, Wee had no authority to consent to the search. We do not find this argument persuasive. 19 The Supreme Court has ruled that consent to a search must be made by an individual with common authority over the property. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). The Court defined common authority as joint access or control for most purposes. Id. at 171 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. at 993 n. 7. Cases subsequent to Matlock have emphasized that a consent-giver with limited access to the searched property lacks actual authority to consent to a search. For example, in United States v. Warner, 843 F.2d 401, 405, (9th Cir.1988), we held that a landlord's consent was insufficient even when the tenant gave permission to the landlord to enter the premises in his absence. In United States v. Impink, 728 F.2d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir.1984), we suggested that a consent-giver whose right of access is narrowly prescribed would lack sufficient authority to consent to a search. The cases upholding searches generally rely on the consent-giver's unlimited access to property to sustain the search. See United States v. Guzman, 852 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that authority to consent was present when consent-giver had full access to property); Sealey, 830 F.2d at 1031 (same). 20 Here, the Government argues that Wee's name was on the lease and that he supervised loading of the tools into the storage units. The difficulty with this argument is that Kim had the only key to the lock and had general control over the unit. Wee did not have independent access and, without Kim's permission, Wee did not have the authority to open the unit (and never did open it for his own purposes). These factors put the case outside the joint access or control for most purposes test. 21 However, we have noted that Matlock also establishes an assumption of risk analysis. See United States v. Sledge, 650 F.2d 1075, 1080 n. 10 (9th Cir.1981) ([A] defendant may assume the risk that the third party will at times exceed the scope of authorized access, as that is defined in precise and narrow terms....). Here, Kim dispatched Wee to rent the storage units. By instructing Wee to lease the units in Wee's name, Kim assumed the risk that Wee could exercise his rights as lessee to have the storage company open the unit. In addition, Kim allowed Wee to keep possession of the leases, supervise unloading of the goods and retain the keys on occasion. At any time, Wee could have accessed the storage locker without Kim's knowledge or permission. Because Kim ceded partial control of the PSM lockers to Wee at all times, and allowed him total control on occasion, he assumed the risk that Wee would allow a search of the units. Thus, we find that Wee possessed common authority to consent to the search. 22 Because we find that actual authority existed we do not reach the alternative argument that Wee possessed apparent authority to consent to the search.