Defendant was staying at the house of another when a search warrant for the premises was executed. He argued that his particular bedroom wasn’t subject to search under the warrant because he had a separate expectation of privacy in the room. The argument is rejected. The warrant and the probable cause was for the whole house. State v. Muilenburg, 2019 Iowa App. LEXIS 420 (Apr. 17, 2019):
We conclude the warrant authorized both a search of Cody and a search of the residence, each being separately and particularly identified. See Prior, 617 N.W.2d at 263. As explained above, unlike the Fleming case, the warrant application in this case clearly identified the person whose name appeared in the warrant and two separate people who were at the residence when the odor of marijuana emanated from the apartment. Muilenburg, the person Winterboer recognized from the apartment encounter earlier in the day, is one of the individuals not identified by name, but referenced in the application for the warrant. This is not a case in which the person claiming a violation of an expectation of privacy was never referenced in the application for the warrant, as was the case in Fleming. The application and warrant were directed not only at Cody, but also at the residence, which ended up being the residence of Muilenburg, one of the very persons referenced in the application. We conclude the search of Muilenburg’s bedroom was within the scope of the warrant. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Muilenburg’s motion to suppress.