Opinion ID: 1189752
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subsequent Consent Search of the James Home

Text: Cantrell argues the search of the James home, conducted with James's express consent, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Cantrell does not challenge the voluntary nature of James's consent or her authority over the premises. Instead, Cantrell contends James's consent to search was invalid because Cantrell was a lawful co-occupant of the home, and Cantrell presented substantial and credible evidence he objected to the search. To support his argument, Cantrell relies on Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 120, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), where the Supreme Court held a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident. See also United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954, 958-61 (8th Cir.2008) (en banc). In Randolph, the co-occupants were spouses with equal rights to the property. In Cantrell's case, the government contends it is unclear whether Randolph applies because James, as the owner of the house, had a right to exclude or eject Cantrell at any time, since he was merely an occasional overnight guest. Indeed, the record contains conflicting evidence as to the nature of Cantrell's authority over or interest, if any, in the property. We need not decide whether Cantrell was a physically present resident or whether the James residence constituted a shared dwelling as contemplated by Randolph because, even assuming Cantrell had a right to object to the search, the district court did not clearly err in finding Cantrell did not object to the search. James testified Cantrell objected to the search, yelling a lot of obscenities and saying you get a search warrant. In contrast, Deputy Wallace testified he never asked Cantrell for permission to search, and Cantrell never objected to the search. Deputy Wallace further testified that, at one point, Cantrell even asked Deputy Wallace to retrieve his wallet, which Cantrell left either on the kitchen counter or in the bedroom in a bag of clothes. The district court expressly found Deputy Wallace's testimony was credible and James's testimony that Cantrell spontaneously and loudly disclaimed a grant of consent was incredible. The district court also noted Cantrell's supposed vehement objection to the search was inconsistent with Cantrell's request that Deputy Wallace retrieve his wallet from the kitchen or bedroom. A district court's determination as to the credibility of a witness is virtually unreviewable on appeal. Heath, 58 F.3d at 1275 (citations omitted). We find no basis to conclude the district court erred, much less clearly erred.