Warrant Exception for Consent

Question 1

Consent

Answer 1

A search based on valid consent is reasonable. The police do not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Question 2

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (SCOTUS 1973)

Answer 2

This case held that valid consent means that the consent is voluntary.
1. Voluntariness depends on the totality of the circumstances
2. The police do not have to tell the suspect that they have the right to decline a search in order for it to be voluntary.

The defendant here said “sure, go ahead” when the police asked if he could search the car.

Question 3

Test for Voluntariness

Answer 3

From Gonzales-Basulto (5th Cir)

Totality of the Circumstances Test: none of these are dispositive! They can only weaken the government’s arguement.

(1) the voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status (under arrest?)
(2) the presence of coercive police procedures (weapons/threats)
(3) the extent and level of the defendant’s cooperation with the police (did they say something indicating consent?)
(4) the defendant’s awareness of his right to refuse consent (police do not have to inform people of the right to not consent, but there cannot be pressure)
(5) the defendant’s education and intelligence; and
(6) the defendant’s belief that no evidence will be found.

Question 4

U.S. v. Watson (SCOTUS 1976)

Answer 4

This case held that someone can still voluntarily consent to a search even if they are under arrest.

Question 5

Bumper v. North Carolina (SCOTUS 1968)

Answer 5

This case held that the government has the burden of proving that consent was voluntary given the totality of the circumstances.

Question 6

U.S. v. Matlock (SCOTUS 1974)

Answer 6

This case held that co-tenants can give the police consent to search spaces that they share.

Question 7

Illinois v. Rodriguez (SCOTUS 1990)

Answer 7

This case held that the police can conduct a search based on the consent of someone who they reasonably believe has the authority to give them consent, even if that person does not.

Facts: here, consent was given by an ex-girlfriend who had moved out of her boyfriend’s apartment but still had a key.

Question 8

What is the standard regarding apparent consent?

Answer 8

The police only need to reasonably believe that a person has the authority to consent.

Dearing held that If their believe is not reasonable, they need to inquire into the extent of the person’s authority (here, the police should have asked a live-in nanny about whether she had authorized access to her employer’s bedroom).

Question 9

What happens if two people have actual authority to consent to the search and one consents but the other does not?

Answer 9

The police cannot search the house. If the police do proceed to search the house, they cannot use evidence against the person who did not consent.

Question 10

Georgia v. Randolph (SCOTUS 2006)

Answer 10

This case held that if two people with actual authority consent to a search of the house the police are not allowed to search the house.