United States v. Omar Arreguin
735 F.3d 1168, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23506 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment's apparent authority doctrine, law enforcement officers may not rely on a third party's general consent to 'look around' a residence to justify a warrantless search of private areas like a master bedroom, especially when the third party's authority is ambiguous and circumstances suggest another occupant controls those specific areas.
Facts:
- Nine DEA agents conducted a 'knock and talk' investigation at the home of Omar Arreguin, his wife Maria Ledesma-Olivares, and their infant child.
- A houseguest, Elias Valencia, Jr., answered the door looking sleepy.
- From the doorway, agents saw Arreguin inside holding a shoebox, who then moved out of sight and reappeared without it.
- Agent Rubio asked Valencia, in the presence of Arreguin and Ledesma-Olivares, if the agents could 'come in and look around,' and Valencia consented; Arreguin and his wife did not object.
- After entering, agents saw Arreguin walk swiftly toward the master bedroom and called him back to the foyer.
- Agent McQuay proceeded to the master bedroom, where he found the shoebox containing a white powdery substance inside the master bathroom cabinet.
- McQuay then entered the garage through a second door in the master bedroom and discovered a bag containing $176,990 in cash.
- Only after the drugs and cash were found did agents learn that Arreguin was the primary resident and Valencia was merely a guest from out of state.
Procedural Posture:
- Omar Arreguin was indicted in U.S. District Court on federal drug charges.
- Arreguin filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his home, arguing the search was conducted without a warrant or valid consent.
- The district court, as the court of first instance, denied the motion to suppress.
- Arreguin entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the court's suppression ruling.
- Arreguin (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further findings on Valencia's apparent authority over the specific areas searched.
- On remand, the district court again denied Arreguin's motion to suppress.
- Arreguin (appellant) again appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 answers the door have apparent authority under the Fourth Amendment to consent to a search of private areas of a residence, such as the master bedroom and attached garage, when officers know nothing about the third party's relationship to the property and other residents are present but silent?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin
No. The warrantless search of the master bedroom and garage was unconstitutional because the officers could not have reasonably believed that Valencia had the authority to consent to a search of those specific, private areas. Under the apparent authority doctrine, the government must prove that officers held an objectively reasonable belief that the consenting person had authority over the particular area being searched. Here, the agents knew virtually nothing about Valencia or his connection to the home. Factors like Valencia answering the door, his sleepy appearance, and the residents' failure to object were insufficient to establish his authority over the master suite. In contrast, Arreguin's own actions—possessing a shoebox and moving toward the master bedroom—strongly suggested that he, not Valencia, had control over that private space. The court held that police 'are not allowed to proceed on the theory that ignorance is bliss' and must make further inquiries when a third party's authority is ambiguous.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the specificity requirement of the apparent authority doctrine in the context of third-party consent searches of a home. It clarifies that a general consent from an unknown individual at the door does not grant law enforcement a blanket authorization to search distinctly private areas like a master bedroom. The ruling establishes that officers have an affirmative duty to resolve ambiguity regarding a consenter's authority over specific spaces before conducting a search. This precedent strengthens Fourth Amendment protections within the home by preventing officers from relying on ambiguous consent to intrude into areas where a resident has a high expectation of privacy.
