United States v. Johnson , 156 F. App'x 719 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 13, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31259
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JENEALIOUS T. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-50049
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jenealious T. Johnson appeals his conditional guilty-plea
conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by
state probation and parole officers on the day of his arrest,
because the search by the officers violated his federal and state
constitutional rights.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-31259
-2-
After Johnson allowed the probation officers into his
residence, one of the officers observed a small baggie commonly
used to package illegal narcotics. When the officer asked
Johnson if he would test positive for illegal drugs that day, he
said he would. Accordingly, Johnson conceded to the officers
that he had violated a condition of his probation and, based on
that statement and the empty baggie in the living room, the
officers had reasonable suspicion that drugs or drug
paraphernalia would be found in the residence. See LA. CODE.
CRIM. PRO. art. 895; United States v. Keith, 375 F.3d 346, 349-50
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 367 (2004). The search of
Johnson’s residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See
Keith, 375 F.3d at 349-50. Further, assuming that the evidence
seized on the day of Johnson’s arrest was seized from his
brother’s bedroom and assuming, as Johnson asserts, that his
brother’s room was inaccessible to him, Johnson has no standing
to bring a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of his
brother’s room. See United States v. Wilson, 36 F.3d 1298, 1302
(5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Phillips, 382 F.3d
489, 496-97 (5th Cir. 2004).
Finally, although Johnson argues that the search violated
his state constitutional rights, the reasonableness of the search
under the Fourth Amendment is not dependent upon state law.
United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 766 (5th Cir. 1993); see
also United States v. Walker, 960 F.2d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, Johnson’s conviction is AFFIRMED.