United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jeffrey J. Flores, Defendant-appellant, 963 F.2d 380 (9th Cir. 1992)Annotate this Case
Before CHOY, FARRIS and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The Fourth Amendment is not violated when a law enforcement officer conducts a warrantless search based on a reasonable belief that the consenting party has authority to consent. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 2800-01 (1990). The district court concluded that Taimanglo reasonably believed that Cayanan could properly consent to the search of Flores' clutch bag. The court's conclusion is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1533 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 866 (1988).
The district court's conclusion is supported by the record. Taimanglo searched Cayanan's bedroom alone. The facts available to Taimanglo when he searched the bag would cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that Cayanan could properly consent to the search. See Rodriguez, 110 S. Ct. at 2801. Taimanglo's testimony confirms that he did not know that the bag did not belong to Cayanan. The district did not clearly err.
Before addressing Flores' argument that the law enforcement officers violated the knock and notice requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1309, we must determine whether Flores has standing to challenge the allegedly unlawful entry. An individual whose personal interests have not been infringed by an unannounced police entry does not have standing to challenge the entry. See United States v. Valencia-Roldan, 893 F.2d 1080, 1081 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2181 (1990). Flores must establish that he is a member of the class to be protected by section 1309. See United States v. Lockett, 919 F.2d 585, 587 (9th Cir. 1990).
In Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97 (1990), the Court held that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in another party's home and may object to an unlawful search of that home. Flores does not contend that he was an overnight guest in Cayanan's apartment; rather, he states that he was a "guest." Olson did not address whether guests other than overnight guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy. We follow the Eleventh Circuit's lead in declining to extend Olson to shorter-term guests, see United States v. Sweeting, 933 F.2d 962, 964 (11th Cir. 1991). We therefore hold that Flores lacks standing to challenge the officers' allegedly unlawful entry.