Court Opinion

ID: 9482277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:45:33.202791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:52.964371
License: Public Domain

GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
There is sufficient testimony in this record to support the finding of the district judge that Castro was not an overnight guest within the meaning of Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990). Based on all the evidence before him the district court found that Castro’s stay at Cardenas’s apartment “was only to await Osorio’s return”. While the language used by Castro in his testimony, elicited through an interpreter, was not crystal clear, it is the function of the district court, not this court, to determine what was meant by the words used. Since I find no error in the district judge’s findings, much less clear error, I would affirm his conclusion that Castro lacked standing to suppress the incriminating evidence found in Cardenas’s apartment.