California Criminal Lawyer Blog

The 9th Circuit (Reinhardt joined by Goodwin and Smith) considers a search of storage units where a defendant was living. The police followed suspects of meth production back to a storage unit where they knew the defendant was living. The unit was rented by another suspect.

The police knocked on the door, and the defendant greeted them with a metal pipe in hand. The police ordered him to drop the pipe, which he did, and the police supposedly saw a meth lab. The police then conducted a sweep.

The police then waited a couple hours, and did another search, supposedly with the consent of the renter of the storage unit (the other suspect). The 9th upheld the first search under the protective sweep exception, because the police did not know if the other suspect was hiding in the unit. Plain view, however, still requires a warrant, or other exception.

The 9th Circuit held that the search two hours later was not proper because the defendant was living at the unit, and had an interest that he shared with the renter. Under Randolph, the consent of the non-resident co-owner could not trump the objection of the resident /defendant. The 9th Circuit also stressed that there is no hierarchical standing recognized here. An owner, as opposed to resident, is not the same as a parent/child or military. This is an important vindication of Randolph.

U.S. v. Murphy, No. 06-30582 (2-20-08).