United States v. Davon Peyton, 745 F.3d 546

Background

Peyton and his elderly great-great-grandmother, Martha Mae Hicks, co-occupied a one-bedroom apartment; Hicks used the bedroom and Peyton slept/kept belongings in the living-room area. Both were on the lease.
Police arrested Peyton for drugs in June 2009, executed a warrant search that yielded no evidence against him, then received a tip he was dealing from the apartment.
On July 14, 2009 four officers (one of whom had been on the earlier warrant search) returned without a warrant; Hicks signed a consent form authorizing a search of the apartment; officers found a closed shoebox by Peyton’s bed containing crack, marijuana, and cash.
A grand jury indicted Peyton based on the July evidence; officers later returned in January 2010 with an arrest warrant, obtained Hicks’s consent again, and found additional drugs and a firearm in kitchen cabinets.
Peyton moved to suppress evidence from both warrantless searches; the district court admitted most July evidence (excluding kitchen) and all January evidence; Peyton pled guilty to lesser drug and weapons counts but reserved suppression appeal rights.
The D.C. Circuit reviews de novo legal rulings and for clear error factual findings and reverses the district court as to the shoebox evidence, remands for further proceedings on the January search, and allows Peyton to withdraw his plea if suppression materially affected it.

Issues

Issue	Peyton's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Hicks could consent to search the closed shoebox by Peyton’s bed	Hicks lacked "common authority" over the shoebox/area; shoebox was Peyton’s private container	Hicks had common (and apparent) authority over the living room and its contents; shoebox in plain view in common area	Shoebox search unlawful — Hicks lacked apparent authority given her statement that Peyton kept his personal property in that area; evidence suppressed
Waiver of shoebox argument	Preserved below by arguing Hicks lacked authority over the area where Peyton kept his belongings	Argued Peyton waived specific container argument by not explicitly raising shoebox at suppression hearing	No waiver — appellate court treats prior argument about authority over defendant’s area as encompassing closed container
Whether January 2010 search evidence is fruit of the July shoebox search	January evidence tainted because indictment and arrest stemmed from shoebox evidence	January search would have occurred regardless; even if causal link exists, consent in January may purge taint	Remanded to district court to decide fruit-of-the-tree issues and whether January consent purged taint; appellate court declines to decide first-instance
Effect on conditional guilty plea	Suppressed shoebox evidence undercuts counts to which Peyton pled; entitles him to withdraw plea if suppression was material	Government may argue plea remains valid or evidence harmless	Court finds suppression undermines plea-related charges and permits Peyton to withdraw plea after district court resolves remaining suppression issues

Key Cases Cited

Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third-party consent based on common authority)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (apparent authority; officer’s reasonable belief suffices)
Donovan v. A.A. Beiro Constr. Co., 746 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (common-area consent does not automatically extend to interiors of closed containers)
United States v. Whitfield, 939 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agents must make further inquiry when mutual-use is ambiguous)
United States v. Harrison, 679 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (spouse’s common authority can justify consent to seizure in shared storage area)
Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (U.S. 2014) (co-occupant consent generally valid when objecting occupant not present)
United States v. Holmes, 505 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (consent can purge taint; factors for attenuation analysis)
Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (limits on search of closed containers within the home)