CA6: Officers lacked reasonable belief in apparent authority of a woman to consent to a guest’s belongings in his room

Officers came to an apartment to arrest the defendant for whom they had an arrest warrant, but they had no search warrant. A woman who answered the door let them in, and they arrested defendant, taking him out. Without asking defendant or even attempting to resolve any possible ambiguity as to ownership of a shoebox marked 10½ men’s Air Jordans surrounded by men’s clothes, the officers got consent from the woman, who essentially disclaimed a privacy interest in the room. The District Court’s suppression order is affirmed; no apparent authority to consent. United States v. Taylor, 600 F.3d 678, 2010 FED App. 0103P (6th Cir. 2010):

Upon conducting a full search of the apartment, the officers found more men’s clothes in the spare bedroom’s closet. This again indicated that someone besides Arnett was using this space—most likely Taylor because he was found in a nearby bedroom in his underwear. Although Arnett had no children, the closet in the spare bedroom contained a mix of children’s clothes, toys, and men’s clothes. Underneath an item of men’s clothing lay the closed shoebox. In short, nothing in the closet indicated that the items within it belonged to Arnett or were regularly used by her. Under these circumstances, when the officers discovered and were considering whether to open the shoebox, a reasonable person would have had substantial doubts about whether the box was subject to mutual use by Arnett.

Our conclusion is further reinforced by the district court’s factual finding that “the police would likely not have opened the closed shoebox if they believed it belonged to Arnett. Rather, they opened the shoebox precisely because they believed it likely belonged to Taylor.” Such a factual finding—that the officers believed the shoebox belonged to Taylor before they opened it—further strengthens Taylor’s argument that a reasonable officer in these circumstances would have had substantial doubts about whether the shoebox was mutually used by both Taylor and Arnett. Although many items that belong to a houseguest like Taylor might also be used by the dwelling’s resident (such as books, compact discs, magazines, or a portable stereo), a shoebox that is surrounded by the guest’s clothes and that sits in the corner of a closet in a little-used room is not likely to be such an item.

The government’s argument the shoebox had a lesser expectation or privacy was rejected:

Taylor’s shoebox was not sealed, and a shoebox is not a container that historically has enjoyed heightened expectations of privacy. See United States v. Block, 590 F.2d 535, 541 (4th Cir. 1978). But this does not equate to a per se rule that shoeboxes are never entitled to expectations of privacy in the Fourth Amendment context. Rather, we must consider the entirety of “the facts available to the officer at the moment” of his decision. See Waller, 426 F.3d at 846 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, those facts demonstrate that there was ambiguity as to whether Arnett had mutual use or control of the shoebox found in the closet.