Argued and Submitted, Phoenix, Arizona October 8, 2014.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01335-DGC-1. David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding.
The panel affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search of the defendant's residence.
The defendant argued that the search was unlawful under Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), because, even though his fiancé e consented to the search of their joint residence, the defendant was present and did not consent. Noting that Randolph requires that the resident who is refusing consent both be present at the house and expressly refuse to allow the search, the panel held that the district court correctly determined that the search of the defendant's residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment, where the defendant refused to come to the door and acquiesced in letting his fiancé e deal with the police.
Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, and Daniel L. Kaplan (argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant.
John S. Leonardo, United States Attorney, Mark S. Kokanovich, Deputy Appellate Chief, and Theresa Cole Rassas (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Barry G. Silverman, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Silverman.
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Marlon Moore appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Moore contends that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress evidence that law enforcement officials obtained through a search of his residence. Moore argues that the search of his residence was unlawful under Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), because, even though his fiancé e consented to the search ...