Consent Flashcards
What is the trump card for any 4th amendment claim?
Consent. If consent is given voluntarily than it trumps essentially any defense.
What is required to waive the following rights?
1) 4th amendment
2) 5th amendment
3) 6th amendment
1) Voluntariness
2) VIK
3) VIK
Why is the 4th amendment held to a lower standard to waive the right?
Because consent is a good thing and society should encourage consent to searches.
What is the exception seen in Royer v. California to Consent being the trump card?
If the individual is illegally seized, then voluntary consent cannot trump the illegal seizure suppression.
What is the scope of a search that a suspect consents to?
The scope of the consent is limited to what the police believe they are looking for. So if they are looking for stolen tvs, they cannot look in a kitchen cabinet.
What is “common authority”?
The person uses the location/item as if it were their own, then they can consent to a search of that item or property.
What is required for a third person to give consent for a search of the area to take place?
Common Authority or apparent common authority.
What if, as in Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990), the ex girlfriend gives consent and allows the police in using her key, but she does not actually have common authority. Is this a valid search?
Yes. Although the girlfriend is no longer living there, she still has a key, leading the police to believe she had common authority.
The police may reasonably believe she was living at that location, so there was apparent authority. Apparent authority is enough for a search as long as it was reasonable for an objective, reasonable police officer to rely on it.
Can these people consent to a search?
1) Husband for a wife?
2) Parent for an underage child?
3) Landlord for a tenant?
4) Hotel Manager for a guest?
5) Parent for an adult child living at home?
1) Yes;
2) Yes;
3) No;
4) No;
5) Depends on the totality of the circumstances. Does the child pay rent, have their own space, etc.
What if one spouse says yes to a search at the same time another says no?
Under Georgia v. Randolph (2006), the no will trump the yes.
But this is a narrow holding. So the conflicting answers must be simultaneous and firm.
