Opinion ID: 720250
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Officers Hindi and Whitehead's Search of the Fox Residence.

Text: 33 Finally, Bell challenges the officers' search of the Fox trailer home on Fourth Amendment grounds. Bell filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the officers' search of the trailer based on an alleged lack of exigent circumstances. The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge, finding that Bell lacked standing to challenge the search of the trailer, and that the search of Bell's pants resulting in the location of the .22 caliber firearm was warranted both by Bell's consent and exigent circumstances. 34 Bell claims there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the Fox residence, and there was no urgent need for immediate action. United States v. Flickinger, 573 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 836 (1978), overruled on other grounds by United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc). However, Bell fails to address the primary basis for the denial of the suppression motion, to-wit: lack of standing in the premises to support a Fourth Amendment claim. 35 In order to challenge the search of the trailer on Fourth Amendment grounds, Bell must have established standing to do so. Standing requires that the individual asserting the rights must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in those areas searched. United States v. Armenta, 69 F.3d 304, 308 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978)). Where the facts are not in dispute, a determination regarding standing is reviewed de novo. United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1277 (9th Cir.1986). A district court's findings of fact at a suppression hearing are upheld unless clearly erroneous. Id. 36 Bell argues that he had standing to challenge the search based on his status as an overnight guest. Bell's sole evidence offered to prove that he was an overnight guest in the trailer was a statement by counsel at oral argument on the suppression motion that Bell was, in fact, a guest. Cf. Armenta, 69 F.3d at 308 (rejecting an assertion of standing despite the fact that the Defendant offered testimony that he had spent the night; that his wallet, baptismal certificate, and social security card application were found at the house; and an affidavit from counsel stating that a third-party would testify that the defendant was a guest and had run of the house). 37 Here, the district court found that Bell has failed to present any evidence which established that he had a legitimate privacy interest in the mobile home. Provided with the opportunity to dispute this lack of evidence, Bell has failed. The district court did not err in finding that Bell lacked standing to challenge the search of the residence. 38 D. Bell's conviction for use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 39 Pursuant to the parties' Stipulation for Limited Remand to the District Court, Bell's conviction for use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is remanded to the district court for dismissal and resentencing in light of Bailey v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 501 (1995). E. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 40 At the argument of this matter, the Defendant's retained counsel, who served both at trial and on appeal, admitted to errors in his representation of the Defendant. First, counsel admitted he erred in failing to move for a severance of the escape charge from the drug and firearm charges. Secondly, counsel acknowledged that he failed to introduce testimony at the suppression hearing to support the Defendant's standing to claim Fourth Amendment rights in the mobile home. We note that at trial, the Defendant testified to facts that may have established Fourth Amendment standing had that testimony been offered at the suppression hearing. The lack of such testimony at the suppression hearing was fatal. 41 The issue of counsel's effectiveness, or lack thereof, is not before us on this direct appeal of the convictions.