United States v. Wallene Bear

MEMORANDUM

Wallene Bear appeals from her convictions for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 846(a)(1) after entry of a conditional guilty plea. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in denying the suppression motion. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a suppression motion. United States v. Ruiz, 428 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir.2005). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Id.

It is undisputed that the driver gave consent to search the automobile where the contraband was discovered in a purse. The district court did not clearly err in its factual finding that the purse was under the joint control of the driver and the defendant, and that each had joint access to it. Given that finding, the district court did not err in denying the suppression motion. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 , 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) (“[Wlhen the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent…