Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

Ninth Circuit examines the constitutionality of a warrantless search of a storage unit when the person who lived in the storage unit denied permission to search but the person who owned the storage unit granted permission to search

Ninth Circuit examines the constitutionality of a warrantless search of a storage unit when the person who lived in the storage unit denied permission to search but the person who owned the storage unit granted permission to search: On behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt applies the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Georgia v. Randolph to hold that the search was unlawful.

Today's opinion states:

Next, the government argues that Randolph does not apply because the storage unit was not a residence. As an initial matter, Murphy's living situation was unconventional, but the record shows that the storage units were the closest thing that he had to a residence. He was sleeping in unit 14 and storing his belongings in unit 17. For the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, this is sufficient to create an expectation of privacy and thus the authority to refuse a search. Moreover, even if the storage units could not be considered a residence, there is no reason that the rule in Randolph should be limited to residences. Randolph is rooted in the idea of common authority and the Supreme Court has extended the principle of common authority well beyond residences.

You can access today's Ninth Circuit ruling at this link.

Full post as published by How Appealing on February 20, 2008 (boomark / email).