United States v. Frank McCaster

аware apply here. U.S.C.I. it cannot inconsistencies be- injurious allegedly had indicated about Donnelly

tween what compa- acquired financial health compa- of those actual state

nies and the ninety days after clos- than

nies no later fact removes the undisputed

ing. This reach of the from the allegations

Trustee’s Thus, exception.

layman-expert found, correctly U.S.C.I.’s court

district time barred. claims are also

tort

III. CONCLUSION reasons, affirm the we foregoing

For the summary judg- grant court’s

district correct in The district court was

ment. borrowing the Missouri

concluding law applied and looked to Kansas

statute limitations rules. Under

for its statutes of for contract of limitations

Kansas statutes claims, claims are

and tort the Trustee’s Therefore, the district

fully time barred. respects when it all

court was correct the defendant as

granted judgment

matter of law. America,

UNITED STATES

Appellee, McCASTER, Appellant.

Frank

No. 98-3125. Appeals,

United States Court

Eighth Circuit. 9, 1999. March

Submitted:

Filed: Oct. Rehearing En Banc

Rehearing and

Denied Dec. 1999.* * grant petition. Judge Judge Sheppard Arnold would Morris Theodore McMillian Olkon,

Nancy Minneaрolis, K. Minneso- (Ellis ta, Olkon, brief), argued on the Appellant. Larsen,

Mark D. Assistant Attor- U.S. Minnesota, ney, ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍Minneapolis, argued, for Appellee. HEANEY,

Before: BEAM and Circuit GOLDBERG,1 Judges, Judge of the United States Court International Trade.

BEAM, Judge. Circuit trial, jury After a Frank possession convicted of dis- intent to (crack) tribute cocaine base in viоlation of 841(a)(1) 841(b)(1)(B). § U.S.C. He appeals the district court’s2 denial of his suppress sup- motion to evidence and to press statements. affirm. Goldberg, Judge Magistrate 1. The Honorable W. Richard recommendation of United States of the United States Court of International Judge John M. Mason. Trade, sitting by designation. Sickle, 2. The Honorable Bruce M. Van United Judge, adopting report States District “curti- search of the closet as authorized

I. BACKGROUND that, if the found even lage.” He further in a lived Frank McCaster adequately not de- warrant did Minneapolis. North Penn Avenue area, was nonethe- scribe the authorizing a to a valid warrant Pursuant the offiсers’ reliance less admissible since apartment, “including ga- his search of reasonable. objectively was on the warrant curtilage,”3 police and outbuildings rages, no evi- judge also found magistrate apartment. McCaster’s officers searched officers, improper by coercion the denсe of of crack co- quantity a small They found ad- statement and thus found McCaster’s apartment. in the in a ceramic statue caine objection, the missible. Over hall in a com- They searched a closet also adopted report the and rec- district court duplex. The of the mon area thе back magistrate judge. ommendation of the tenant of by shared the other closet was The officers found over six duplex. the jury and con- by was tried McCaster in the of crack cocaine closet. grams with in- possession one count of victed of found, drugs the officers After the were The dis- to distribute crack cocaine. tent under ar- McCaster that he was informed him trict court sentenced to 120 months’ cooperate. him to After rest and asked incarceration, finding government the warning, a Miranda the officers giving of possessed grams that he over six shown waived his Mi- questioned McCaster. He chal- appeаl, crack cocaine. On McCaster that gave and a statement rights randa crack lenges the admission of the cocaine audiotape. ad- was recorded on McCaster of seized from the closet and the admission cocaine, including that crack mitted his He contends district statement. closet, him. belonged in the to found that the war- finding court erred that, although He further admitted of the closet and rant authorized search in the ceramic statue crack cocaine found voluntary. that his statement was in- consumption, he personal was for his found in tended to sell the crack cocainе II. DISCUSSION interview, the closet. After the recorded cooperate regarding agreed McCaster to closet does argues McCaster supplier. representa- on that his Based “curtilage,” not fall within the definition tion, custody into was not taken McCaster to be the warrant. authorized searched to аttend his son’s out-of- but was allowed He contends that historical definitions game town that weekend. When football applicable not in the context curtilage are not it later became clear that he would urban, apartment-style living. We need cooperate police, with the he was arrеsted. common areas of not decide whether trial, sup- dwelling always multi-unit are included Before moved to McCaster what- “curtilage,” for we find that press crack cocaine seized from the the term equivalent urban modern-day He ever the suppress closet and to his statement. found in the hall curtilagе, contended that the search of in this case. properly warrant and closet was admitted by not authorized the search apartment’s im- cur- If the closet is within his statement was result specifically the warrant authorizes proper police tilage, coercion and was thus invol- part not to seаrch. If the closet is untary. hearing After a on the motions curtilage, McCaster has judge apartment’s recom- suppress, magistrate give to no they magis- mended that be denied. The shown challenge the search standing warrant him to judge trate found that the search building immediately ad- any Curtilage originally include land or referred to the land dwelling, usually enclosed in jacent outbuildings immediately adjacent to a castle to way by a fence or shrubs. See Black’s by high some that were in turn surrounded stone (6th ed.1990). wall; Dictionary 384 today, meaning extended to Law its has been of the evidence found there- Our review of the the admission recоrd shows that prove has failed in. that he had a legitimate expectation in the may judgment affirm the on hall closet. His assertion that the closet is record, any grounds supported even not within the curtilage of his not relied on the district court. See undermines his assertion of an Monterey Development Corр. Lawyer’s Moreover, in the closet. he (8th Co., any Title Ins. F.3d possessory Cir. disavowed interest in the 1993). closet,4 Assuming argument for the sake of contents of the any failed show curtilage, that the area is not and thus not efforts exclude others from the space, or warrant, precautions covered any to maintain privacy. The search, constitutionality of the tenants, McCaster evidence showed that two other landlord, possessed must demonstrate that he a le well as the had access to the short, gitimate expectation privacy par closet. In presented suppression ticular area sеarched. See hearing supports United States (8th Cir.1985). Nabors, 465, v. 761 F.2d 468 that expecta- McCaster had no reasonable rights may Fourth Amendment not be vi tion of privacy the hall closet. Under cariously circumstances, asserted. See id. In order to these McCaster has no a legitimate expectation privacy show in standing the search. To hold premises, person the searched chal otherwise would allow a criminal to keep lenging the search has the burden ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍of show legitimate contraband from the reach of subjective ing expectation' priva both a simple law enforcement act of stоr- cy expectation objectively ing and that the it in a is shared common area. reasonable; is, that one that society is Finally, even if McCaster had Olson, willing accept. v. Minnesota expectation shown an of privacy in the 91, 96-97, 1684, 495 U.S. 110 S.Ct. 109 closet, the evidence that it establishes (1990) L.Ed.2d 85 that (recognizing an ov objectively reasonable for the officers to ernight guest expectation has reasonable search the closet in on reliance the war Illinois, privacy); Rakas v. 439 U.S. rant. Evidence seized even through a de 128, 1, 421, 130 n. 99 S.Ct. 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ficient warrant is still admissible officers (1978). factors are Several relevant to this executing objectively the warrant were showing: party posses whether the has a upon in relying reasonable it. See United sory in the things interest seized or the Leon, 897, 922, v. States 468 U.S. 104 S.Ct. searched; place party whether can (1984). 3405, agree 82 L.Ed.2d 677 We place; exclude that others from whether proximity the close of the аrea to party precautions took to maintain the living quarters and its enclo privacy; key and whether the had a party duplex supports sure within the unit See, premises. to the e.g., Rawlings v. finding that it was reasonable the offi 98, 105, Kentucky, 2556, 448 U.S. 100 S.Ct. within cers believe the area fell (1980); Nabors, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 761 F.2d scope of the warrant. rejected at 469. have the notion of a generalized expectation challenges McCaster next statement, apartment common of an building. areas admission of his recorded con McGrane, tending voluntary. See United States v. 746 F.2d that it was not In this (8th Cir.1984). context, 634 we review the district court’s find- Despite 4. his initial admission thаt he owned trial that the cocaine found in the statue be- cocaine, argued the crack in his longed visiting girlfriend to a and McCaster's objections magistrate judge's report argued counsel that the cocaine found in the belong- and recommendation that items "no have left there must been former ” ing to McCaster were found in the room’ tenants. (emphasis original). He later testified at 934 error, view, my a tenant in a has a for clear and its deter

ings of fact novo, in com consid reasonable mination of voluntariness de only by duplex’s mon areas shared surrounding circumstances ering all the tenants and the landlоrd. Three cases Ingle, States v. the confession. See United Cir.1998). directly our circuit have addressed this (8th 1147, 1150 When 157 F.3d McGrane, issue. See United States v. 746 is overborne coercive defendant’s will (8th Cir.1984); F.2d 632 United States v. resulting is police activity, the confession Luschen, (1980); 614 F.2d 1164 and Unit Fulminante, Arizona v. inadmissible. ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍See (8th Eisler, ed 567 F.2d 814 Cir. States 279, 288, 111 S.Ct. U.S. 1977). Both and Luschen fоllow McGrane (1991). magistrate judge The L.Ed.2d 302 Eisler and hold that a tenant does not employed had not found that the officers have a coercive tactics. We have re improper an the common areas of budd testimony that there agree

viewed the 816; ing. F.2d at improper is no evidence of cоercion. McGrane, 634; Luschen, 746 F.2d at government encouraged fact F.2d at Each of these dis cases is cooperate, McCaster to and then allowed tinguishable from the facts this case. him at home rather than book to remain him, ing does not establish the kind of Eisler was the first case to address this poliсe activity Eisler, that renders a con coercive directly. In a DEA agent issue involuntary. v. fession See Colorado Con apartment entered the defendant’s com- 157, 163-67, nelly, 107 479 U.S. S.Ct. plex surveyed apart- the defendant’s (1986). Tactics such as 93 L.Ed.2d 473 hallway. ment from a common 567 F.2d at location, these will not render a confession involun From that agent 816. the over- tary impact of the inter unless overall coming heard conversations from the de- rogation caused the defendant’s will to be apartment. fendant’s id. The court See Smith, overborne. See Jenner v. 982 F.2d hallways held that the common because (8th Cir.1993). 329, 334 The fact were avаilable for use all residents and given McCaster had been the Miranda guests, their as well as the landlord and in warning weighs is another factor that agents, his the defendant had no reason- conversations, favor of the that the statement was expectation that able his Mendoza, voluntary. See United States hallwаy, heard from the common would be (8th Cir.1996). 85 1350 F.3d free from intrusion. See id. McGrane,

In DEA agent a entered the III. apartment CONCLUSION basement of the defendant’s building ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍and looked in the defendant’s of the district court is judgment The storage locker. 746 F.2d at 633. The affirmed. agent a in saw containers of chemical used manufacturing a controlled substance. See HEANEY, in Judge, concurring Circuit Eisler, Following id. the court held that part in dissenting part. expecta- the defendant had no reasonable privacy tion of in the basement because it majority’s I concur conclusion building was a common area of the accessi- closet was lawful ble to all tenants and the landlord. See because the closet area was within the McGrane, 746 F.2d at 634. is, apartment’s “curtilage.” There howev- er, Luschen, majority opine police surveyed no for the a officer reason apartment dicta that McCaster did not have a reason- defendant’s from the second- apartment able door. expectation duplex’s landing floor near his Eisler, they following common F.2d at 1167. closet. Because unnecessar- Also conclusion, ily reach this I am the court held that the surveillance did not forced per- illegal dissent. constitute an search because a exрectation priva- reasonably could be said greater has no reasonable to have a son cy in halls and common areas of than Luschen, F.2d at buildings. occupants 1173. would be true of large build- ings.” Id. distinguishable from the These cases are First, facts of this case. McCaster lived Fluker, Similar to the defendant upstairs duplex, only a where he and the building only consisted of two (See Appellant’s tenants resided. Br. at units. Both the front and back doors 8.) Eisler, McGrane and Luschen involved locks, duplex only had the tenants multiple-unit apartment buildings with landlady and the had duplex. access to the more than two tenants. 12.) Further, Appellаnt’s Br. at {See 815-16; McGrane, 633; F.2d at 746 F.2d at only by closet was shared the tenants and Luschen, Hence, at 614 F.2d fewer Thus, the landlady. right because the to the common area individuals access duplex access to the and use of the closet prior in this case than our cases. individuals, was limited to these Second, rеasonably expected greater could have the common area in this case McCaster, multiple- than he resided in a up- closet shared tenants, building. unit landlady. and the stairs Unlike basement, hallway or the closet was isolat- living arrangement nature of the It was located under the stairs that ed. duplex, opposed to a multi-unit build- upstairs apartment led and was ing, leads me to conclude that a tenant in a storage used as a area for the tenants and pri- has a reasonable (Tr. 22.) 22, 1998, landlady. May vacy in common areas only shared area, likely storage As would duplex’s landlady. tenants and the by anyonе not be accessed than the other concluding, In so I must address the landlady certainly tenants and and would majority’s point last on this issue. The a frequently hallway not be accessed as majority that if it states were to hold as I Thus, accessibility or basement. to the would McCaster had a reasonable ex- hallways closet was more limited than the pectation under these circum- prior or basement addressed our cases. stances, it keep “would allow a criminal to Third, the facts of this case are similar legitimate contraband from the reach of Fluker, to United States v. 543 F.2d 709 simple law enforcement aсt of stor- (9th Cir.1976), distinguished we case it in a I ing shared common area.” find no Eisler. 567 F.2d at 816. support proposi- decided cases this Fluker, the court held that the defendant Holding tion. that a tenant in a has a reasonable separating the corridor the door of his duplex only pro- the common areas of the doоrway apartment from the outer of the standing vides tenant with building. 543 F.2d 716. The simply requires warrantless search. It court noted that the defendant in a lived law enforcement ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍obtain a warrant be- building only with two other tenants and searching byIt no means fore such areas. entryway that access to the was limited as provides сriminals a safe harbor for their right matter of to the two basement contraband. Furthermore, tenants. See id. the outer reasons, respectfully I For these dissent. locked, always only door was building’s having keys. three tenants facts,

id. Based on these the court found the two basement tenants exercised

“considerably more control over access portion building than would be complex,

true a multi-unit and hence

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Frank McCaster

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Oct 12, 1999

Citation: 193 F.3d 930

Docket Number: 98-3125

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.