Court Opinion

ID: 9480314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:44:37.137006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:36.687166
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While I do not write out a lengthy dissent, I feel that every test was met by the government to excuse the absence of a search warrant. I worried for some time about the officers opening the garage door of the lean-to garage with Suarez’s electronic door bug. But it was a common garage for several cars of several people, where the majority of the cases seem to *1469hold that no one user occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in common hallways or multiple garages.
But, if I had the votes, I would remand the case for further hearing on the scuffle that occurred after the garage door had been opened, and after Suarez had invited the officers into the house. Suarez was handcuffed. This could have vitiated the invitation to come in and to search. This point was never reached in the trial court or in the appellant’s brief. Never having voted for rough stuff, I would like to see that examined in the district court.
Also, I am troubled by this. Accompanying Suarez’s Motion to Suppress, he made an affidavit saying, inter alia, as follows:
“2. That your affiant did not consent to any entry into the garage or the garage area located at 574 Roxella Lane, # C, Las Vegas, Nevada on or about October 7, 1987, by any law enforcement officer;
3. That your affiant did not consent to any search of the premises or any area within said premises located at 574 Rox-ella Lane, # C, Las Vegas, Nevada, on-or about October 7, 1987, by any law enforcement officer;
4. That your affiant was not advised of his Miranda Rights at any time at the aforementioned premises; that he was read his Miranda Rights for the first time on October 7, 1987 at the office of the Drug Enforcement Agency; that this advisement occurred after your affiant had been transported in custody from the aforementioned premises; ”
On a de novo review of the evidence, as we do in this sort of case, isn’t there a lot of falsity in these three paragraphs? Aren’t we entitled to draw some inferences from the falsity thereof? Shouldn’t the district attorney be concerned about these verified statements?
Otherwise, I rely on the district court’s opinion and order. (See U.S. v. Suarez, 729 F.Supp. 1269 (D.Nev.1987.)