Consent Flashcards
Your Opening Phrase for Consent
Validly obtained consent renders a warrantless search reasonable
How does it affect Probable Cause?
makes it unnecessary
Was it voluntary? (or coerced)
Will Consider:
1) Free & Voluntary and
Voluntary= actual & apparent authority
2) Totality of circumstances test- determine whether consent was freely given
Totality of Circumstance Test
√was there show of force
√repetitive request/badger
√age, mental condition, education
√ did she know she could refuse to give consent
(*no firm requirement to tell her she can refuse)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte:
Police have no burden to tell person that he has the right to refuse
-knowledge can refuse is not essential factor
Courts usually find consent voluntary
Who has burden to show was voluntary?
Gov’t has burden to show consent was voluntary
Scope
i. Fl v. Jimeno: the scope of a valid consent search is determined by asking what a reas. person would’ve considered the consent to include.
ii. Hypo—warrant exception moving into another one:
iii. Ex) if you give consent to search trunk & they find drugs
1. Now, indep p/c to search —fall w/in car search exception
Default Rule for Joint Owned Property
US v. Matlock (1974):
i. Common areas are ok if co-occupant consents
US v. Matlock
4th amend recognizes a valid warrantless entry and search of premises when police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares…authority over the area in common w/co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained.”
a. Car belongs to both husband/wife
b. When the police seek consent from one joint user at time when other person is absent, voluntary consent from the one present is permissible. √AOR
c. √looked for evidence of Matlock; consent given by woman why matlock was in police car next to residence. (law treated him as absent, so her consent was enough)
One is present one is NOT
CA v. Fernandez (tests breadth of Randolph)
a. Reason he not there is because police arrest him! They went back and sought consent from her/girlfriend/roommate
b. Court held her consent was valid. (objectively police had p/c to remove him so all is well- Default rule still Matlock.)
c. ←dissent (Ginsberg)
i. ←4th amend supposed to be per se unreas w/out warrant, exceptions not exceptions if not few in #; & WTF—it’s a HOME!
BOTH ARE PRESENT
GA v. Randolph
GA v. Randolph
Police sought entry co-owned. 5:4- Souter (retired now)
Wife said yes (custody dispute, she hated him, she was living in Canada anyway), She says he’s cocaine user; Husband said no standing right there! = narrow rule, no AOR
i. “a physically present co-occupant’s refusal to permit entry prevails over the consent of the other party thereby rendering the warrantless search unreasonable & invalid as to him”
ii. √physically present & √expressly refuses consent
i. “a physically present co-occupant’s refusal to permit entry prevails over the consent of the other party thereby rendering the warrantless search unreasonable & invalid as to him”
ii. √physically present & √expressly refuses consent
GA v. Randolph
Apparent Authority
If police have reasonable belief that person had authority to consent then it’s VALID
-Would the facts available to the officer at that moment, have warranted a person of reasonable caution that the person had authority over the premises.
Illinois v. Rodriguez
1. “into our apartment” she let in & consented while he was asleep
2. reality-she didn’t live there anymore, she still had key
3. I: was her consent valid?
4. Reasonable Belief: Only require police acted reasonably to fulfill req of 4th amendment; object standard
