Opinion
No. 04-0686.
March 31, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Thomas N. Bower, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Robert Ewald, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Gerguson, County Attorney, and Brad Walz, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Shane Ryan Blackledge appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(5) (2003). He contends the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We review de novo. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001).
The narrow issue on appeal is whether the police, while lawfully searching a garage, may search a metal container belonging to a guest on the premises. Blackledge was staying with a girlfriend on East 16th Street in Cedar Falls, Iowa. The girlfriend and her roommate were tenants at the property, which included the garage in question. On September 8, 2003, the roommate entered the garage and looked inside the container. She saw a large spoon, several syringes, and "probably 20-30 baggies with white residue inside." On September 10, the roommate called police to have the defendant removed from the property. When the officers arrived, the roommate told them Blackledge had drugs in a metal container in the garage. She gave the police permission to search the garage and after a hunt, found a key to the garage and let them in. She pointed out the metal container to the police. Inside the container the police found methamphetamine, methamphetamine residue, spoons, needles, and other paraphernalia. Blackledge alleges the search of the container violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.
At the suppression hearing, defense counsel cited State v. Grant, 614 N.W.2d 848 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000), to the court and said,
[E]ven if a tenant or lessee has given consent that that consent does not extend to the personal belongings of a guest. And in this case we're arguing that at least some of this matter — that a closed container like a box in the garage, which the defendant said was his and the officers believed to be his because that's what they had been told, were saying that the consent couldn't have extended to that particular item and wondered if the Court would consider that limitation on — or that modification of its ruling.
The court indicated its ruling denying the motion to suppress took into account this argument. Error was preserved on this issue
The appellant relies on State v. Grant, and were it not for the earlier "search" of the box by the roommate, we would find it controlling. In Grant, officers were given permission by a tenant to search a bedroom. Grant, 614 N.W.2d at 851. On entering they discovered unknown occupants and clothing. Id. They did not know who owned a jacket. Id. at 854-55. However, they went ahead and searched inside the jacket. Id. The court held the search to be unreasonable. Id. at 855. Here, the officers were informed the container belonged to Blackledge. Under the circumstances known to the officers at the time of the search, it was unreasonable to believe the roommate had the authority to consent to a search inside a closed container in the garage.
The State argues the earlier "private search" of the container by the roommate takes this case outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Although this ground was not urged to the district court, we may affirm evidentiary rulings on any ground, whether presented to the district court or not. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 62 (Iowa 2002).
The private search theory discussed in United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), was applied in United States v. Miller, 152 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 1998). In Miller, under similar circumstances as here, the court held no Fourth Amendment search occurred at all, so the drug-related evidence was lawfully obtained. Miller, 152 F.3d at 816. Because the box had been searched by the roommate prior to the arrival of police officers, the officers' search of the box was lawful. See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 120-22, 104 S.Ct. at 1661, 80 L.Ed.2d at 99. ("[I]t is wellsettled that it is constitutionally reasonable for law enforcement officials to seize `effects' that cannot support a justifiable expectation of privacy without a warrant, based on probable cause to believe they contain contraband.") Accordingly, we affirm the district court's ruling denying Blackledge's motion to suppress.