Opinion ID: 220344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Search of the Premises

Text: Marrero next contends that the search of the premises after his arrest clearly exceeded that necessary, and so the crack cocaine recovered from the laundry room and the marijuana seized from the apartment should be suppressed. In essence, Marrero claims that the officers searched the apartment before they obtained a search warrant, that they searched the laundry room without obtaining a warrant at all, and that neither search fell within any exceptions to the warrant requirement. As an initial matter, the Government challenges Marrero's standing to object to a search of either the apartment or the laundry room, arguing that he lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in either space. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) ([C]apacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends ... upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.). The district court agreed with respect to the laundry room, reasoning that it was a common area of the apartment complex. The district court's finding that the laundry room was accessible to the public is not clearly erroneous, and it did not err in admitting the crack cocaine the police found hidden in a washing machine. See United States v. Dillard, 438 F.3d 675, 682-83 (6th Cir.2006) ([The defendant] did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway and stairway of his duplex that were unlocked and open to the public.). As for the search of the apartment, the Government points to Marrero's repeated statements in the district court denying that he was living there, see, e.g., Trial Tr. vol. 2, 302, May 29, 2008, ECF No. 55 (accepting jury instruction submitted by the defense stating that [t]he defense says the drugs did not belong to him and he did not live at the apartment in question, and he was never in the laundry room), as evidence that he lacked the requisite expectation of privacy in the apartment. See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90-91, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998) (holding that defendants had no legitimate expectation of privacy in, and thus could not challenge the search of, another's dwelling which they had visited only for the commercial purpose of bagging cocaine). The district court did not determine whether Marrero was actually living in the apartment, and we are hesitant to rule on this issue without the benefit of a factual finding on this point. Regardless, the district court did find that the relevant search and seizure of the marijuana occurred after the police secured a valid search warrant. This conclusion is not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err in its decision that the seizure of the marijuana complied with the Fourth Amendment.