Opinion ID: 450796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Search of Office Closet

Text: 12 The government first challenges the suppression of the items seized from the closet at Milian's business premises. 1 With respect to these items, the district court stated: 13 I find that the defendant voluntarily allowed the brief search in the room above the airport and agreed as part of his negotiations with the agents to allow a search at least of the files and records in his office ... I would find that the files that were copied over the long period of time--I think perhaps that took all night--that there was a consent given by the defendant to allow that ... However, it did seem to me that the Government went beyond that when it picked the lock on the door some time late in the evening, that that was beyond the scope of the consensual search. And I think the record reflects clearly that the search that was consented to, the defendant was talking about files and records and not the right to go and pick the lock on his closet. Certainly, the Government could have gotten a search warrant, had lawyers available, tired though they may have been, during that day. I would go ahead, based on that, I would suppress whatever evidence was in the closet. 14 Milian adds that the agents' consistent focus on the files and ledgers in which his money-laundering operations were recorded demonstrates that the government's interest was limited to the records stored in his office. The government argues that the district court erred in suppressing this evidence because the consent given by appellee extended to his entire business premises, and because appellee manifested his consent to the search of the closet by telling agents the location of the key. 2 15 A suspect's consent can impose limits on the scope of a search in the same way as do the specifications of a warrant, see Mason v. Pulliam, 557 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1977). Moreover, the government may not use consent to a search which was initially described as narrow as license to conduct a general search, See United States v. Dichiarinte, 445 F.2d 126 (7th Cir.1971). There is no basis, however, for concluding that either of these principles was violated in the instant case. Although the discussion during the afternoon focused on the material that would be provided by records and files, the form signed was general; and there was absolutely no discussion of any limit on the search or on the nature of the items to be inspected. Moreover, the execution of the consent form was part of Milian's on-going effort to cooperate with the police. Because the agents would not make a deal except for material of great interest, Milian had strong incentive to grant an authorization which was as broad as possible. Finally, even if the search had been limited to records and files, the search of the closet would not necessarily have been invalid. As the closet was immediately adjacent to Milian's desk, it would have been entirely reasonable to believe that there might be files and records stored inside it. Cf. United States v. White, 706 F.2d 806, 808 (7th Cir.1983) (applying objective reasonableness standard of Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168) (search of travel bag valid because reasonable to think narcotics might be hidden there). Thus the district court's finding that consent was limited to files and books was clearly erroneous. 16 The district court's error in suppressing the evidence is also demonstrated by the exchange which took place between Milian and the agents concerning access to Milian's closet. While Milian was still present in the office, agents attempted to open the closet adjacent to the desk. When they found it was locked, Milian advised them that the key was in his briefcase (which had been taken from Milian's plane to the Operation Greenback office). By describing the location of the keys which would provide entry into the closet, Milian provided additional evidence of his consent to the search. Cf. United States v. Allison, 616 F.2d 779, 782 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 857, 101 S.Ct. 156, 66 L.Ed.2d 72 (1980) (consent indicated by presentation of keys to law enforcement officials). Appellant argues that this case is distinguishable from cases such as Allison in which the keys are physically presented and more closely analogous to cases in which the defendant gives a qualified or equivocal response and fails to present officials with the keys. See United States v. Patacchia, 602 F.2d 218, 219 (9th Cir.1979) (defendant expresses willingness but inability to open trunk because of damage to rear of car and absence of trunk key); cf. United States v. Ester, 442 F.Supp. 736, 738 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (defendant says nothing but permits law enforcement agent to retrieve key from defendant's pocket). This claim, however, has little merit. Milian was unable to present the keys, as the briefcase had been taken to Operation Greenback, but there was nothing equivocal in his response: the agents were fully aware of the location of the briefcase, and Milian knew this when he provided the information. Providing officials with the information necessary to gain access to the closet was, moreover, fully consistent with Milian's comprehensive attempt to cooperate with law enforcement efforts. Not only the generality of Milian's written consent but his oral response to official efforts to search the closet indicate that the district court's suppression of its contents was clearly erroneous.