Opinion ID: 222323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clearly Erroneous

Text: The court argues that I overlook a difference between our role as an appellate court, and the district court's role as the fact finder. The court is quite right that we review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Indeed, I apply this standard and conclude that the district court's conclusion that Stockbridge was a co-owner of the computer was clearly erroneous. An ex-girlfriend does not co-own a computer given to her ex-boyfriend by his father. But the issue of consent is not a factual question; it is a legal question. This entire dissent is predicated on the assumption that Stockbridge did consent to the search  thereby deferring to the district court's conclusion. The issue is not whether Stockbridge consented, the issue is whether she had the authority to consent. That is a legal question that we review de novo. The court's argument is predicated on the assumption that this is a factual issue, which misses the point. Upon review, I conclude that as a matter of law, an ex-girlfriend, acting as a bailee, cannot consent to a search of her ex-boyfriend's property while he is serving a prison sentence. Additionally, the apparent authority question is also a legal issue, even though it involves a fact-based inquiry. Again, as a matter of law, I conclude that based on this court's precedent and Supreme Court precedent, given what the agents knew at the time, it was unreasonable for them to believe that an ex-girlfriend had the authority to consent to this search. Indeed, as stated above, the agents' conclusion that Stockbridge had apparent authority was based on two misapplications of the law  which can never be reasonable.