United States v. Levi Smith, 24-4014

Levi Bryant Smith was convicted after entering a conditional guilty plea for possessing ammunition while under a domestic violence protection order, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8), 924(a)(2).
Smith moved to suppress the ammunition found in his bag, arguing the search was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
During the search, Detective Youngo was led to Smith’s bag and handed it by Brandon Sullivan.
Smith’s conviction was appealed on the grounds that Sullivan lacked authority to consent to the search and seizure of the bag.
The district court denied the suppression motion, finding Sullivan had at least apparent authority to consent.
On appeal, the court reviewed the district court’s fact findings for clear error, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the government.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Lawful Right of Access: Did the officer lawfully access the bag?	Sullivan lacked authority to consent to the search and seizure of Smith's bag.	Sullivan had at least apparent authority to consent to the search and seizure of the bag.	A reasonable officer could believe Sullivan had apparent authority, so access was lawful.
Plain View Doctrine: Was seizure of the ammunition permissible under plain view?	The plain view exception did not apply as the bag was not lawfully accessed.	The ammunition’s incriminating nature was immediately apparent once the bag was lawfully accessed.	The plain view doctrine applied and the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (reasonableness is the core of Fourth Amendment analysis)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (warrantless searches are generally unreasonable except for specific exceptions)
United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (plain view doctrine: conditions for lawful seizure of evidence)
United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148 (deference owed to district court's credibility findings in suppression hearings)