Lacey

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Lacey appeals the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. He claims that the court erred in admitting evidence seized pursuant to the consent of Carla Dozier, the girlfriend with whom he lived. Lacey claims that Dozier lacked either actual or apparent authority to consent to the seizure of his home computer and to the search and seizure of media files located in the garage of Dozier’s home. He also challenges the admissibility of his statements to police under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

The district court did not err in permitting evidence located on the home computer based upon Dozier’s actual authority to consent to the search. Dozier paid the rent and held the apartment in her name; she enjoyed access to all parts of the home, including the computer, which she used occasionally. Because she thus had “common authority over the property,” United States v. Kim, 105 F.3d 1579, 1582 (9th Cir.) (citing United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974)), cert. denied 522 U.S. 940 , 118 S.Ct. 353 , 139 L.Ed.2d 275 (1997), she had actual authority to consent to the seizure of the…