Consent Searches Flashcards
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte—Voluntary Consent
In this case, police officers stopped a vehicle in which Michael Bustamonte was a passenger. The officers did not have a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle. However, they obtained consent to search the vehicle from both the driver and Bustamonte. During the search, the officers found stolen property and arrested Bustamonte.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts’ decisions in a 7-2 ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun held that the consent to search was voluntary, and therefore the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that the government’s burden to show that consent was voluntary is relatively low, and that the totality of the circumstances must be considered in determining whether the consent was voluntary. The Court also held that knowledge of the right to refuse consent is not a prerequisite to a finding of voluntary consent. The majority stated that it would be impractical to give such a warning in the informal conditions in which consent requests are made
US v. Prescott—The consequences of Refusing Consent
The court held that a person cannot be penalized for exercising their right to refuse to permit a search and that passive refusal to consent to a warrantless search is privileged conduct which cannot be considered evidence of criminal wrongdoing
US v. Watson—Impact of Custody
In the absence of consent warnings or of proof that Watson knew he could withhold consent was not controlling where the defendant had been arrested and was in custody but his consent was given on the public street and not the station
US v. Gonzalez-Basulto—6 Factors for Consent
Non-exclusive six factors for determining voluntary consent
- The voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status: This factor considers whether the individual was in custody at the time of consent and whether their custodial status was voluntary. Consent given while in custody may be less likely to be considered voluntary.
- The presence of coercive police procedures: This factor examines whether law enforcement used coercive tactics or methods to obtain consent, such as threats, intimidation, or physical force. The presence of coercive police procedures could undermine the voluntariness of consent.
- The extent and level of the defendant’s cooperation with the police: This factor assesses how cooperative the individual was with law enforcement during the encounter. A high level of cooperation might suggest that consent was given voluntarily.
- The defendant’s awareness of his right to refuse consent: This factor takes into account whether the individual knew they had the right to refuse consent to the search. If the person was not aware of this right, their consent might be less likely to be considered voluntary.
- The defendant’s education and intelligence: This factor considers the individual’s level of education and intelligence, as these factors could affect their ability to understand their rights and the consequences of giving consent.
- The defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found: This factor examines whether the individual believed that the search would not uncover any incriminating evidence. If the person thought that no incriminating evidence would be discovered, they might be more likely to give voluntary consent.
US v. Matlock—Actual Authority
Matlock was arrested in the front yard of a house; Mrs. Graff allowed the police into the home and told them she shared the home with Matlock;The court found the search to be reasonable because Graff had actual authority to content to the search; The authority which justifies third party consent does not rest upon the law of property, but rather on mutual use of the property by persons having joint control or cohabitants
US v. Thomas—Consent to Search Cellphones and Computers
Thomas’s wife called the police after finding child pornography on a computer that she shared with her husband, the police obtained consent to conduct a forensic examination of the computer and the court held that the wife had authority to consent
Illinois v. Rodriguez—Apparent Authority
Whether a search is valid when based on the consent of a third party who has apparent but not actual authority; Gail Fisher lived in Rodriguez’s apartment but have moved out a month before the search and simply retained a key; She reported to the police that she had been assaulted by Rodriguez in the apartment and traveled with them to the apartment letting them in; During the engagement she referred to the premises as their apartment; The officers saw drugs in plain view; The entry was valid if the officers had reasonable believed that Fisher had authority to consent; Consent is governed by the reasonableness standard which allows for reasonable mistakes
Stoner v. California—Mistakes of Law
The rights protected under the 4th are not toe be eroded by unrealistic doctrines of apparent authority; It was unrealistic for the officers to assumed that the hotel desk clerk would have the legal authority to consent to the search of a rented room
Georgia v. Randolph—Defendant Is Present and Objecting
Held that even if one occupant consents, a physically present co-occupants stated refusal to permit entry prevails rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid to that person; Randolph and his wife had separated; She moved away and returned to the home to get some belongings; She complained to the police that her husband took their son away; The officers reached the home and she told them her husband was a cocaine user and that there were drugs in the home; After going to the home they asked for consent to search Randolph refused his wife consented; The police entered and found drugs; There is not common understanding that one contestant generally has a right over the other to prevail over the express wichs of the other
Mapp v. Ohio
All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
