NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50206
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00486-ODW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KEVIN LLOYD STANLEY, AKA Kevin
Stanley,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT, BYBEE,** and IKUTA,*** Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Following the death of Judge Rymer, Judge Bybee was drawn to
replace Judge Rymer on the panel.
***
Following the death of Judge Beezer, Judge Ikuta was drawn to
replace Judge Beezer on the panel.
Kevin Stanley conditionally pleaded guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) to one count of possession of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He reserved the right to appeal the denial
of his motion to suppress the offending material located during a search of his
computer, a search conducted by federal agents led by Agent Michael Prado. The
court concluded that because his girlfriend who consented to the search, Tiana
Stockbridge, had the apparent authority to do so, the search of the computer was
reasonable.1
We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal in accord with 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
Whether a third party such as Stanley’s girlfriend has apparent authority to
consent to a search of the property of another is an inquiry into the totality of the
circumstances, and asks whether the facts available to the police officer at the time
of the search would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that the third party
could consent to the search. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990).
When the property to be searched is a container, the inquiry must examine the third
party’s relationship to that container, United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171
1
Because the doctrine of apparent authority is sufficient to decide this
appeal, we do not address Stanley’s other contentions.
2
& n.7 (1974), as well as whether circumstances indicate that the third party lacks
access to the contents of the container, see United States v. Fultz, 146 F.3d 1102,
1106 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding no apparent authority where the officers knew that
appellant’s boxes were segregated from the homeowner’s items and the
homeowner indicated that the boxes were appellant’s). The critical issue is
whether “the surrounding circumstances could conceivably be such that a
reasonable person would doubt [Stockbridge’s consent] and not act upon it without
further inquiry.” Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 188.
An examination of the record here shows that Agent Michael Prado, the
investigating officer, knew enough about Stockbridge’s relationship to the
computer when he received her consent to justify a finding of apparent authority.
Agent Prado knew that Stanley’s parents gave Stockbridge custody of the
computer after Stanley’s arrest. He also knew that Stockbridge and Stanley had
dated for roughly nine years and lived together—and while living together, had
jointly used the computer—but were no longer dating or living together. He knew
that Stockbridge had used the computer for many years and had her own personal
files on it.
There is no evidence that Agent Prado was aware of circumstances
suggesting that Stockbridge’s access to the computer might be limited. Most
3
important, there was no evidence that the computer was password-protected (and
Stanley admits it was not). Nor was there evidence that either Prado or Ulises
Solorio, the agent who forensically examined Stanley’s computer, knew that the
computer had separate user accounts. Rather, the evidence shows that Solorio
accessed the computer’s hard drive remotely, which would have bypassed any
screen displaying the user accounts.
Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for Agent Prado to conclude
that Stockbridge had the authority to consent to a search of Stanley’s computer.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4