United States v. Alan Nohara
93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6398, 93 Daily Journal DAR 11032, 3 F.3d 1239 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant in a large, multi-unit apartment building does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in the common hallways, even if the building has extensive security measures.
Facts:
- DEA agents arrested Barry Nobrega, who agreed to cooperate against his methamphetamine supplier, Alan Nohara.
- Nobrega informed agents that he had received drugs from Nohara at his residence in the Craigside Condominium, a 27-story high-security building.
- At 4:00 a.m., Nobrega, accompanied by agents, went to the building's guest entrance and used the intercom to call Nohara.
- Nohara remotely unlocked the entrance, allowing Nobrega and a hidden DEA agent to enter. Other agents were let in by a security guard.
- The agents went to the 25th floor and positioned themselves in the hallway to the side of Nohara's apartment door, out of view from the peephole.
- Nobrega knocked on the door, and after looking through the peephole, Nohara opened it.
- As Nohara opened the door, an agent peeked around the corner and saw Nohara holding a glass methamphetamine pipe, a black bag, and a butane torch.
Procedural Posture:
- Alan Nohara was charged in U.S. District Court with distributing a controlled substance and a related firearm offense.
- Nohara filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- At trial, Nohara renewed his motion to suppress, which the district court again denied.
- A jury found Nohara guilty.
- Nohara filed a timely notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.
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 resident of a large, high-security apartment building have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in the common hallway outside his apartment door?
Opinions:
Majority - Sneed, Circuit Judge
No. A resident does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway of a large apartment building that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. The court applied the two-part test from Katz v. United States, which requires both a subjective expectation of privacy and an objective one that society finds reasonable. The court found that any subjective expectation Nohara had was not objectively reasonable. It distinguished this case from United States v. Fluker, which involved only two basement apartments and was explicitly limited to its narrow facts. This court aligned with the majority of circuits holding that common areas of apartment buildings are not private spaces for Fourth Amendment purposes. The court adopted the reasoning from United States v. Eisler, stating that security measures like locked entrances are for residents' security, not to create privacy in common hallways accessible to other tenants, guests, and building staff. Because Nohara had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway, the agent's act of peeking around the corner was not a 'search,' and the subsequent plain view observation of the meth pipe provided probable cause for the arrest.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Ninth Circuit's position, aligning it with the majority of federal circuits, that common areas in large apartment buildings are not protected spaces under the Fourth Amendment. It clarifies that extensive security measures in a multi-unit building serve to protect residents' safety but do not create a constitutionally recognized zone of privacy in shared spaces like hallways. The ruling effectively limits the precedent of United States v. Fluker to unique situations with very few residents sharing a space, preventing its application to typical apartment complexes. Consequently, this case provides law enforcement with clear authority to conduct surveillance from common areas of apartment buildings without a warrant, provided they have gained lawful entry to the building.
