United States v. Lambert Grandberry
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19180
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- LAPD received a tip and surveilled Lambert Grandberry for suspected crack distribution; investigators knew he was on California parole with a search-condition authorizing warrantless searches of "your residence and any property under your control."
- Officers observed Grandberry sell drugs at a garage, then repeatedly (6–10 times over ~2 weeks) enter an Arlington apartment building with keys; limited surveillance at his reported DMV/parole address (South Manhattan Place) consisted of one short daytime visit.
- Police arrested Grandberry outside the Arlington building, used keys he dropped to enter the building and an apartment, and seized ~75g of crack, a firearm, clothing, and mail addressed to Grandberry at his reported address.
- Grandberry moved to suppress the apartment evidence arguing officers lacked probable cause to believe the apartment was his residence; the district court granted suppression; government appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit panel considered whether (1) Motley/Howard’s requirement that officers have probable cause that a parolee lives at a residence before a warrantless parole-condition search remains binding post-Samson, and (2) whether the parole condition’s phrase "property under your control" independently authorized the apartment search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Samson overruled Motley/Howard so officers need not have probable cause that a parolee lives at a residence before a parole-condition search | Grandberry: Motley/Howard remains good law; warrants protection of third-party residences | Government: Samson permits suspicionless searches and undercuts Motley/Howard | Motley/Howard remains binding; Samson does not clearly overrule the residence-probable-cause requirement |
| Whether officers had probable cause to believe Grandberry lived at the Arlington apartment | Grandberry: Officers lacked strong evidence of residence (reported DMV/parole address, limited checks, no overnight observations) | Government: Frequent entries with keys, drug activity, and Grandberry’s response to "we're going to search your place" supplied probable cause | No—under the circuit’s "relatively stringent" totality-of-circumstances test, the facts were insufficient to establish probable cause of residence |
| Whether the parole condition phrase "any property under your control" independently authorized searching the apartment absent probable cause of residence | Grandberry: Phrase should not be read to permit entry of another person’s residence without probable cause; would nullify "residence" term and invade third-party privacy | Government: "Property under your control" includes the Arlington apartment (keys show control) and thus authorizes search | Rejected: where the property is clearly a residence, the condition is triggered only if officers have probable cause the parolee lives there; "property under your control" does not eliminate the residence probable-cause requirement |
| Standing to seek suppression as an overnight guest | Grandberry: As an overnight guest he has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search | Government: Argued limits based on parolee status | Court: Grandberry had standing (citing Olson and circuit precedent); standing does not alter the probable-cause inquiry for the officers at the time of the search |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (parolees may be subject to suspicionless searches under some circumstances)
- Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (requirement that officers have probable cause that parolee lives at searched residence)
- United States v. Howard, 447 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) (applies and refines Motley factors for residence probable cause)
- Cuevas v. DeRoco, 531 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2008) (reiterating residence probable-cause requirement and protecting third parties)
- United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2007) (applies Samson to parole searches but does not disturb Motley/Howard rule)
- United States v. Franklin, 603 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses probable-cause-as-to-residence in contexts where defendant had no reported address)