Defendant lived with his brother who was on probation in a locked room. Officers came to conduct a probation search of the brother, and it was unreasonable to search defendant’s locked room. They had no reason to believe the brother had any control over the locked room. Protective sweep is also rejected. United States v. Franco, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21598 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2018):
Here, the officers could not have had reasonable suspicion that Pedro’s locked bedroom was an area owned, possessed, or within the control of Claudio, the probationer. See Davis, 932 F.2d at 758. It is undisputed that the officers knew they were searching Pedro’s private bedroom, which was not shared with Claudio.
Pedro’s bedroom was locked and only Pedro had the key to the room. These facts support that Claudio certainly did not own, and moreover, did not have control over Pedro’s bedroom or its contents. The facts of this case are in contrast to Davis and Bolivar where the area searched was a shared space, and the probationer had possible access to and control over the items at issue. Here the officers could not have had reasonable suspicion that Pedro’s locked bedroom was controlled or possessed by Claudio. See id. Therefore, Claudio’s probation search condition did not extend to Pedro’s locked bedroom.