In United States v. Parkins, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-50186 (9th Cir. 2024), the Court reversed the district court’s denial of Brett Wayne Parkins’s suppression motion concerning the search of his apartment, affirmed the district court’s refusal to suppress Parkins’s pre-arrest and post-arrest statements, and remanded, in a case in which Parkins was convicted of aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.
When patrol officers came to his apartment, Parkins made clear he did not want them to enter, but his girlfriend consented to a search. The Court, after reviewing the Supreme Court’s cases regarding warrantless searches involving the consent of a co-tenant, concluded that to override his girlfriend's consent, Parkins must have both been present on the premises and expressly refused consent. The Court explained that a defendant need not stand at the doorway to count as being physically present— presence on the premises (including its immediate vicinity) is sufficient. The Court wrote that in light of the layout of the property and Parkins’s close proximity to his apartment, the nearby mailboxes bordering the parking lot where Parkins was detained were part of the relevant premises; thus, Parkins was physically present on the premises to validly object. The panel also wrote that it is clear that Parkins expressly refused consent, as Parkins’s statement not to let the police into the apartment expressly conveyed his objection and the import of that statement was especially clear following on the heels of his physical resistance at the doorway of his home. Accordingly, the consent-based search of Parkins’s home was unlawful.
The Court, however, found that the district court correctly declined to suppress Parkins’s pre-arrest and post-arrest statements.
First, because Parkins was not subject to interrogation during his pre-arrest detention, there was no Miranda violation. Second, as to the post-arrest statements made during his jailhouse interview, the Court concluded that Parkins’s statements were not a product of the unlawful search of his apartment because the officers did not confront Parkins with the evidence obtained as a result of that search.
