United States v. Abel Gilberto Salinas-Cano
959 F.2d 861, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 4537, 1992 WL 48740 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party's consent to search premises does not extend to a guest's closed container within those premises unless the third party possesses common authority over the container, which requires showing mutual use and joint access or control for most purposes.
Facts:
- Abel Gilberto Salinas-Cano occasionally spent several nights a week at the apartment of his girlfriend, Shirley Garcia.
- Garcia was the sole tenant named on the lease and the only person who paid rent for the apartment.
- Salinas-Cano left his closed but unlocked suitcase at Garcia's apartment among his other belongings.
- After arresting Salinas-Cano following a drug buy, police went to Garcia's apartment.
- Police informed Garcia they were investigating Salinas-Cano and asked for her consent to search the apartment for his possessions.
- Garcia consented and showed the officers where Salinas-Cano kept his belongings, including the suitcase.
- Garcia explicitly told the police that the suitcase and its contents did not belong to her, but to Salinas-Cano.
- Knowing the suitcase belonged exclusively to Salinas-Cano, an officer opened and searched it, discovering cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Abel Gilberto Salinas-Cano was charged in the United States District Court with possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Salinas-Cano filed a motion to suppress the cocaine evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unconstitutional search of his suitcase.
- The district court, as the trial court, denied the motion to suppress.
- Following the denial, Salinas-Cano entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the court's ruling on the suppression motion.
- Salinas-Cano, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a third party who has authority to consent to a search of her apartment also have the authority to consent to a search of a guest's closed suitcase located inside the apartment when she lacks mutual use or joint access and control over the suitcase?
Opinions:
Majority - Seymour, Circuit Judge
No. A homeowner's authority to consent to a search of her premises does not extend to a guest's closed container unless the government proves she has common authority over that specific container. Common authority, as defined in United States v. Matlock, requires mutual use and joint access or control for most purposes. Here, the government failed to meet its burden. Garcia explicitly disclaimed ownership of the suitcase and its contents, and the police officer knew it belonged to Salinas-Cano. There was no evidence that Garcia ever used or had joint access to the suitcase. The district court's reasoning that control over the apartment conferred control over everything within it was an error of law. Furthermore, the 'apparent authority' doctrine from Illinois v. Rodriguez is inapplicable because the officer did not make a reasonable mistake of fact; rather, he made a mistake of law by incorrectly concluding that the known facts were sufficient to establish Garcia's authority to consent.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of third-party consent searches under the Fourth Amendment, reinforcing the distinction between consent to search a premises and consent to search a specific container within it. The case establishes that authority over the container itself, not just the surrounding space, is the critical inquiry. It also narrows the application of the 'apparent authority' doctrine, holding that it excuses reasonable mistakes of fact by officers, but not their incorrect legal conclusions based on accurate facts. This raises the bar for law enforcement, requiring them to make further inquiry when the authority of a consenting party is ambiguous regarding a specific, private container.
