United States v. Grandberry, No. 11-50498 (9-17-13) (Berzon with Rakoff, D.J.; concurrence by Watford; responding concurrence by Berzon).
The 9th suppresses guns and crack due to an illegal search. The defendant was a parolee, and under Samson his residence could be searched without suspicion. But the search occurred in a residence in which he did not reside. There was no evidence that the defendant lived at the apartment that he has visited at least six times over a couple days, and where his girlfriend lived. He did not have keys to it, nor exhibited control. The precedent of the 9th allowed the defendant to challenge the search of a place he was at for an illegal search. Watford concurred, but expressing the view that the precedent of Howard needs to be reexamined after Samson because this gives a parolee more rights in someone else's home than his own. Berzon responded in concurrence, arguing that the precedence recognized the rights of another's residence, and the state also could recognize this right be focusing on the suspicion less of the residence of the parolee.