Consent

Question 1

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Answer 1

Facts
In the early hours in Sunnyvale, California, Officer James Rand stopped a car for having a burnt-out headlight and license plate light. The car contained six occupants, including Joe Alcala and the respondent, Robert Bustamonte, with Joe Gonzales driving. Unable to produce a driver’s license, the police asked if they could search the car, to which Alcala consented without any show of force or coercion from the police. The search led to the discovery of three stolen checks beneath the rear seat. Bustamonte was later charged and convicted of possessing a check with intent to defraud, a conviction upheld by the California Court of Appeal. The issue of consent’s voluntariness and the defendant’s awareness of the right to refuse consent was central to the legal dispute.

Issue
The critical constitutional question was what the prosecution must prove to demonstrate that consent to search was “voluntarily” given under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, whether the state must show that the person giving consent knew they had the right to refuse the search.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that for consent to be deemed voluntary under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person giving consent knew of their right to refuse the search. Voluntariness of consent to search is determined from the totality of all the circumstances, with the subject’s knowledge of the right to refuse being a factor but not a prerequisite.

Question 2

illinois v Rodriguez

Answer 2

Facts
In Illinois v. Rodriguez, law enforcement officers arrested Edward Rodriguez in his apartment for possession of illegal drugs without a warrant. The officers gained entry with the consent of Gail Fischer, who claimed to have common authority over the premises. Fischer, having lived with Rodriguez previously, had moved out a month before the incident. She still had a key and personal belongings in the apartment. When the police arrived at the apartment with Fischer, she unlocked the door, allowing the officers to enter and subsequently find drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view, leading to Rodriguez’s arrest. Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence, arguing Fischer lacked the authority to consent to the entry as she was not a current resident.

Issue
The key issue is whether a warrantless entry and search by law enforcement officers are valid when based on the consent of a third party who the police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that a warrantless entry based on the consent of a third party is valid if the police reasonably believe, at the time of the entry, that the third party possesses common authority over the premises. This belief need not be correct, provided it is reasonable under the circumstances.

Question 3

Georgia v Randolph

Answer 3

Facts
In Georgia v. Randolph, the case revolves around a warrantless search conducted at the home of Scott Randolph and his wife, Janet Randolph. After a domestic dispute, Janet Randolph informed the police that her husband was using cocaine, leading to financial difficulties. Upon the police’s arrival, Scott Randolph denied his wife’s allegations and refused consent for the police to search their home. However, Janet Randolph consented to the search, during which the police found evidence of drug use. Scott Randolph was later indicted for possession of cocaine based on the evidence collected during this search. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was unconstitutional due to his express refusal to consent, despite his wife’s permission.

Issue
The central legal issue in Georgia v. Randolph is whether the consent of one occupant is sufficient to authorize a warrantless search when another occupant is present and expressly refuses consent for the search.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other expressly refuses, the refusal overrides the consent, making the search unreasonable and unconstitutional with respect to the objecting occupant.