dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the majority’s legal analysis, I do not reach the same conclusion when it is applied to the facts of this ease.
Under United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 170, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974), “the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.” “Common authority” means “joint access and control for most purposes.” Id. at 171 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 988. This concept is essentially a Fourth Amendment “assumption of risk” analysis. United States v. Sledge, 650 F.2d 1075, 1080 n. 10 (9th Cir.1981).
Cases subsequent to Matlock have emphasized that a consent-giver with limited access to the searched property lacks actual authority to consent to a search. See, e.g., United States v. Warner, 843 F.2d 401, 402 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Impink, 728 F.2d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir.1984). Other cases have relied on the consent-giver’s unlimited access to the property to bolster their finding of actual authority to consent to a search. See, e.g., United States v. Guzman, 852 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Sealey, 830 F.2d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir.1987).
The record of the suppression hearing does not indicate any restriction on the property owner’s access to the garage and defendant’s personal articles. Sergeant Carraway testified the lessee informed him that “most of his stuff was piled up in a pile in the garage” and that when he went to the garage he observed “a large pile of clothes and garbage bags and boxes and personal belongings .... ” The lessee testified that the defendant’s property was “[pjretty much on the floor itself, those were his things.” The lessee had complete access to the area, and had stored some of her possessions right above the defendant’s. There was no evidence from any party that the defendant had made any attempt to establish privacy in his possessions, aside from closing the top on some of the cardboard boxes. No instructions were given the lessee by the defendant, nor were any restrictions requested. There were no markings on the boxes. The defendant’s possessions were in plain sight when the garage door was opened, and the lessee’s children’s toys were located nearby.
Given that there was no evidence of a limitation on access, these circumstances are closer to Sealey than Warner. The defendant assumed the risk that the lessee would consent to a search when he placed his possessions in a pilé in her garage, without attempting to restrict access in any manner. Thus, I believe the district court properly denied the suppression motion.