U.S. v. Esparza, 98-2178

• Decision Date: 28 October 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-2178,98-2178
• Citation: 162 F.3d 978
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose ESPARZA, also known as Franciso Zapata, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 978

162 F.3d 978

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose ESPARZA, also known as Franciso Zapata, Appellant.

No. 98-2178.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 1998.

Decided Oct. 28, 1998.

Mary M. Mateer, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for Appellant.

Alison E. Vander Vort, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, MN, argued, for Appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Jose Esparza appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin, conspiracy to possess and distribute narcotics, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Esparza challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of a common bathroom in his apartment building conducted with his landlord's consent. Esparza contends that without the evidence found in the bathroom, the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him. Because we conclude the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm.

Based on information received from a confidential reliable informant, police surveillance, and controlled drug buys, Minneapolis police suspected Esparza of drug trafficking and obtained a warrant to search his apartment. When the police executed the search, however, they rammed open the wrong apartment door, within earshot of Esparza's apartment. The officers realized their mistake and entered Esparza's apartment, but found only one of Esparza's fellow drug traffickers, who said Esparza had left. To prevent Esparza's escape, police officers were placed at the building's exits. About forty-five minutes later, after finding several rounds of ammunition and some marijuana in Esparza's apartment, the officers discovered a locked room down the hall. The landlord told police the room was a bathroom containing a single toilet for all the tenants' use, and the room was probably occupied because it locked only with an inside latch. The officers knocked on the door, identified themselves as police at least three times in Spanish, and directed the occupant to open the door. The officers received no type of response and heard no noise coming from the room. They concluded Esparza was probably hiding inside and might have a gun and drugs with him because the search of his apartment had yielded bullets but no gun and no significant amount of drugs despite a controlled drug buy earlier that day. The landlord gave the police a crowbar and told them they could force the door open. After doing so, the police found Esparza sitting on the toilet and arrested him. In a nearby hole in the bathroom wall they saw a large plastic bag and the handle of a gun. Inside the hole, the officers found cocaine, heroin, and a handgun.

On appeal, Esparza asserts the warrantless bathroom search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment's general prohibition against warrantless searches does not apply when officers obtain voluntary consent from the person whose property is searched or from a third party with common authority over the property. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (...