IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40367
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR MANUEL DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. L-95-CR-241-01)
December 3, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Victor Manuel Dominguez appeals his conviction for possession
of marijuana with intent to distribute. He rests his argument on
the Fourth Amendment and contends that the district court erred
when it decided not to suppress three bags of marijuana that police
discovered at his home.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Law enforcement officials received an anonymous tip that
Dominguez had stored marijuana in the attic of his residence. When
they arrived at his house, they found that Dominguez was not at
home. The officers informed Dominguez’s wife that they had reason
to believe that marijuana was being stored in the house, and she
gave written consent for police officers to conduct “un registro
completo” — a complete search — of the structure. When asked, she
informed them that the house did not have an attic. The officers
quickly discovered, however, a two-foot by four-foot piece of
sheetrock covering part of the ceiling of an interior hallway and
held in place by a single screw. They easily removed the screw,
detached the sheetrock, and retrieved nearly sixty kilograms of
marijuana from the crawl space between the ceiling and the roof.
In the face of this evidence, Dominguez pled guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute.
Dominguez does not challenge the effectiveness of his wife’s
consent. His only argument is that the search of the space between
the ceiling and the roof fell outside of the scope of her consent.
After conducting a suppression hearing, the district court issued
an order upholding the legality of the search.
We agree with the district court that the consent given by
Dominguez’s wife permitted the officers to search above the ceiling
by removing a single screw from the sheetrock panel. We inquire:
“what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the
exchange between the officer[s] and [Ms. Dominguez]?” Florida v.
2
Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991). This question would be more
difficult if the officers had needed to resort to “structural
dismantling” in order to gain access to the area above the ceiling.
See United States v. Ibarra, 965 F.2d 1354, 1355 (5th Cir. 1992)
(en banc) (affirming by an evenly divided court the suppression of
evidence obtained by taking a sledgehammer to boards that had been
used to seal off the entrance to an attic). But there was nothing
destructive about the officers’ efforts. There was no more reason
to think that Ms. Dominguez would object to removing the sheetrock
panel than to think that she would object to looking behind a piece
of furniture. And the officers did not have a duty to conduct
their search in plain view of Ms. Dominguez so that she could
narrow her consent as the officers proceeded through the house.
United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 507 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
510 U.S. 933 (1993). Ms. Dominguez understood English, and one of
the officers spoke Spanish; Ms. Dominguez could have withdrawn or
limited her consent at any time.
Consequently, a reasonable on-looker would have understood her
consent to a complete search to include a search of the area above
the ceiling so long as the officers did not cause property damage
in conducting their search. See also United States v. Flores, 63
F.3d 1342, 1362 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that consent to search a
vehicle included consent to unscrewing two screws in order to
remove vent panels), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 87 (1996); United
States v. Saadeh, 61 F.3d 510, 518 (7th Cir.) (holding that consent
3
to search the general premises included consent to search inside of
a locked tool box and a desk drawer), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 521
(1995).
AFFIRMED.
4