Opinion ID: 2974395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Herron’s Motion to Suppress

Text: Herron appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through search of his residence. When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, this Court applies a two-part standard, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526, 531 (6th Cir. 2005). On January 8, 2003, the Owensboro Police Department and the FBI conducted a search of 3236 East Sixth Street in Owensboro, Kentucky, which at the time was allegedly the current residence of both Gerald Morris and Herron. Morris consented to the search of the residence, which resulted in the police obtaining the bank bag containing a handgun, newspaper clippings about the robberies, and clothes similar to the ones worn by the robber. Herron argues that the district court should have suppressed the firearm which was found inside the bank bag. Consent to search a closed container can only be provided by “a third party who possess[es] common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the . . . effects sought to be inspected.” United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Herron argues that the bank bag contains with it an inherent degree of privacy and the bag was completely zipped closed. The government, on the other hand, states that Morris had common authority over the bank bag because the bag belonged to Morris and had been lent by Morris to Herron in order to hold toiletries. Additionally, the bag was unlocked and located in a place in the apartment where both Morris and Herron had equal access, a closet located in Morris’s bedroom containing clothes belonging to Herron and clothes belonging to Morris. Given Morris’s ownership of the bag and his access to the closet the bag was found in, he possessed common authority sufficient for his consent No. 05-6061 United States v. Herron Page 9 to allow a valid search of the bank bag. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court denying the motion to suppress.