Opinion ID: 222323
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Co-Ownership

Text: The court writes that while Stanley and Stockbridge lived together (before they broke up), they jointly owned and used the computer. This claim cannot be squared with the facts. To begin, there is no factual basis for this conclusion any-where in the record. The district court's conclusion that Stockbridge was a co-owner was clearly erroneous. Between 1996 and 2004, Stanley and Stockbridge were in a romantic relationship. During their relationship, they lived together in Barstow, California. In 2001, as a gift, Stanley's father gave him the laptop computer in question. There is no evidence whatsoever that Stanley's father gave the laptop to both of them; indeed, it is clear from the record that the gift was for Stanley alone. Although the computer was his alone, Stanley allowed Stockbridge to use the laptop while they were living together. However, Stanley made sure to limit Stockbridge's access. Two different user accounts were set up on the computer, and during their cohabitation Stanley's account was password protected, while Stockbridge's account was not password protected. Stockbridge only used the computer to store her music files; she did not access Stanley's files because she did not believe she had the right to do so. Stanley also did not believe Stockbridge had any right to access his files. In 2004 the couple broke up, and Stanley moved to Porterville, California, taking his computer with him. After he stopped living with Stockbridge, Stanley removed the password protection that locked his user account. Later that year, while he was living in Porterville, Stanley was arrested and sent to state prison for an unrelated criminal charge. Before his arrest Stanley kept his personal property (including his laptop computer) at a friend's house, where he had been staying. After his arrest, the property was moved to Stanley's parents' home. While Stanley was in prison Stock-bridge went to his parents' home and took possession of some of his property to hold while Stanley was in prison, including: music discs, video games, clothing, and his laptop computer. Both agree that Stockbridge was to hold Stanley's property while he was in prison, but that he was to receive all of it back once he was released. But because Stanley did not anticipate his arrest, he did not have a chance to reinstall his password before entering prison. As a result, when Stockbridge took possession of the computer, Stanley's files and directories were not password protected. However, the computer still had two separate accounts that Stanley had created for himself and Stockbridge. Two critical facts from this record demonstrate that Stanley did not co-own his computer with Stockbridge. First, the computer was a gift to Stanley from his father. Second, Stanley affirmed his sole ownership by taking the computer with him when the couple split up and he moved to Porterville. The district court never explains how an ex-girlfriend can jointly own a gift that her ex-boyfriend's father gave to him, not to her. Additionally, even when the couple was living together, Stanley only gave Stockbridge limited access to the computer. Throughout their joint use, Stanley and Stockbridge had an understanding that Stockbridge could not access Stanley's files; there is no evidence that this understanding changed when Stanley went to prison. If she were a co-owner, why would her access be so limited? Given these facts, it's hard to find that Stockbridge was a co-owner. Instead of considering these details before settling on its co-ownership theory, the court's decision relies almost entirely on Agent Prado's declaration. However, in his testimony, Agent Prado never said that Stockbridge used the word owned, and Agent Prado himself equivocated on whether he used the word ownership, or whether he used the word possess or use when he was questioning Stockbridge. That Agent Prado later clarified that he most likely used ownership is not particularly availing, especially in light of Stockbridge's unequivocal, and uncontested, statements to the contrary. Additionally, the court's reliance on Agent Prado's testimony is out of context. The court's decision relies on Agent Prado's use of the following phrase: the computer [Stanley] jointly owned with Tiana Stockbridge. But the entire statement is part of Agent Prado's declaration about what Stanley admitted and includes Agent Prado's characterization of ownership, not Stanley's. The entire statement, in context, reads as follows: Defendant used the computer he jointly owned with Tiana Stockbridge to view images of child pornography. If one were to read the whole sentence, and not just that isolated phrase, one would discover that the operative declaration there is what Stanley admitted he used the computer for  that is, he confessed to storing child pornography on it  not who owned the computer. By selectively reading the statement out of context, the court fails to realize that the ownership reference is an after-the-fact characterization that Agent Prado inserted himself. Essentially, the government wants us to believe that Stanley co-owned a computer that his father gave to him, with his ex-girlfriend who he hadn't lived with for years, and who was currently dating somebody else. The absurdity of this logic would be comical if it were not so tragic for Mr. Stanley and so detrimental to this court's future precedent. The co-ownership theory isn't just clearly erroneous  it's patently false. Because the record does not support a co-ownership theory of consent, the only way this warrantless search can pass muster under the Fourth Amendment is if Stockbridge had either common authority or apparent authority to consent.