Consent Searches Flashcards
Stoner v. California (S. Ct. 1964) (Pursuant to substantial information, the police went to the hotel without a search or arrest warrant. They obtained the consent of the hotel clerk to conduct a search of the Petitioner’s room. The police entered the Petitioner’s room and made a thorough search of its contents. In the room, the police found a pair of horn rimmed glasses, a .45-calibur automatic pistol w
ith a clip, and several cartridges.)
“No less than a tenant of a house, or the occupant of a room in a boarding house, a guest in a hotel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. That protection would disappear if it were left to depend upon the unfettered discretion of an employee of the hotel. It follows that this search without a warrant was unlawful.”
Bumper v. North Carolina (S. Ct. 1968) (police told an old lady they had a search warrant when they didn’t and she consented to the search.) (Issue: “[W]hether a search can be justified as lawful on the basis of consent when that ‘consent’ has been given only after the official conducting the search has asserted that he possesses a warrant?”)
“A search conducted in reliance upon a warrant cannot later be justified on the basis of consent if it turns out that the warrant was invalid.”
Frazier v. Cupp (S. Ct. 1969) (Are statements offered in response to false information provided for the purpose of eliciting a confession admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings?)
Statements offered in response to false information provided for the purpose of eliciting a confession are admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (S. Ct. 1973) (When establishing that consent to conduct a search was voluntarily given, must the prosecution establish that the person giving consent knew that he could refuse the request to conduct the search?)
No. The prosecution must look at the totality of the circumstances in order to prove that consent to a warrantless search absent probable cause was freely and voluntarily given.
People v. Gonzalez (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976) (DEA agent made a controlled buy of narcotics from Gonzalez and returned to arrest him. A scuffle ensued and Gonzalez’s wife locked the door and proceeded to discard cocaine. When entering the apartment to detain both, approximately nine agents had arrived. Mrs. Gonzalez’s mother and grandfather arrived but were asked to leave. Gonzalez first consented to a search and his wife consented after Gonzalez. A commercial quantity of drugs was discovered.)
Consent cannot be the product of overbearing official conduct. (handcuffs, removal of guardians, several police officers)
Illinois v. Rodriguez (S. Ct. 1990) (Is the warrantless entry into a home and subsequent search constitutional where the police reasonably believe that the person consenting to their presence has the authority to do so but the person in fact does not possess such authority?)
Under the Fourth Amendment, the police may enter a home without a warrant if they reasonably believe the person who consents to their presence has the authority to do so.
Florida v. Jimeno (S. Ct. 1991) (A Dade County police officer overheard Enio Jimeno arranging what appeared to be a drug transaction over a public telephone. He followed in his car, and eventually pulled Jimeno over for a traffic violation. He told him he had reason to believe Jimeno had drugs in the car, and asked for permission to search it. Jimeno consented, and a search revealed a brown paper bag with cocaine inside it. At trial, Jimeno argued that his consent to the search of the car did not extend to the closed paper bag within the car.) (Issue: Does a suspect’s consent to a search of his vehicle extend to closed containers found inside?)
Yes. the officer’s search of containers within the car were not considered unreasonable. Since a reasonable person would expect narcotics to be carried in a container, and because the officer told Jimeno of his suspicions, the court ruled the officer acted within reason.
Georgia v. Randolph (S. Ct. 2006) (The police, responding to a domestic disturbance call made by his wife, arrived at Randolph’s (defendant) house. When the police arrived at the house, Randolph’s wife proceeded to tell them that Randolph used cocaine. The police asked for permission to search the home for evidence. Randolph’s wife gave consent but Randolph, who was present with his wife, refused. )
The police may not enter a home without a warrant to search for evidence where they obtain consent from an occupant but a co-occupant is present and objects to the search.
What is the 5th amendment limitation on trickery in obtaining consent?
Some trickery is allowed when attempting to obtain consent to search a home, so long as the ruse does not morally or legally compel the target to grant consent.
Can the person giving consent limit the scope of their consent?
Yes. The words used in obtaining consent matter. Consenting to a search for a stollen T.V. would limit where officers may search. However, consenting to a body search in public includes the groping of genitals.
Consent is valid if given:
voluntarily.
The test for voluntariness is:
based on the totality of the circumstances, consent did not result from express or implied duress or coercion. Ask: was the will of the defendant overborne under the particular circumstances. NOTE: the voluntariness assessment is different from the 4th and 6th amendment.
Seizure
4th Amendment Issue: You’re freedom of movement is restrained, but not to the point of arrest.
Seizure of property
when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.
Express questioning
When the police ask you a question, any question qualifies . . . it doesn’t have to elicit an incriminating response.
