Chapter 8-Searches with consent Flashcards Preview

Briefs of leading Cases in Law Enforcement > Chapter 8-Searches with consent > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 8-Searches with consent Deck (19)
Loading flashcards...

Consent to be valid

must be voluntary and intelligent, based on a totality of circumstances.
Written consent is not constitutionally required, but it goes a long way toward proving the validity of consent if challenged



means the consent was not forced or coerced.



means the person giving consent must know what he or she is doing. Mere silence or failure to object to a search does not necessarily indicate valid consent.


Important principles in consent

1. consent to enter a dwelling does not necessarily mean consent to search. If a container or closet is to be opened after entry, another consent must be sought by police.
2. warning the occupant that he has right to refuse permission is not necessary for the consent to be valid.
3. scope of an allowable search depends on type of consent given.


Court held that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident violates the

4th Amend


Following types of consent are valid, if voluntary and intelligent:

1. consent given by a wife or husband
2. by roommate (as to areas used in common)
3. by driver of vehicle (even if he is not the owner of veh)
4. high school administrators


Consents that are not valid:

1. given by a child
2. landlord
3. lessor
4. hotel clerk
5. college or university administrator
6. business employee


leading case in searches with consent

Bumper v North Carolina, Schneckloth V Bustamonte and Georgia v Randolph


hotel clerk cannot give consent to search the room of a hotel guest.

Stoner v California, 1964


Consent obtained by deception thru a claim of lawful authority, which did not in fact exist,is not voluntary. A search conducted by virtue of a warrant cannot later be justified by consent if the warrant turns out to be invalid

Bumper v North Carolina, 1968
rape investigation, officers went to Bumper house where he lived with his grandmother. they told grandmother that they have a warrant to search the house, which they did not have. Evidence seized was inadmissible. Even tho grandmother allowed officers to search, it was obtained thru deception.


Where there is coercion there cannot be consent

Consent to search is not valid if permission is given as the result of police misrepresentation or deception


Voluntariness of consent to search is determined from the totality of circumstances, of which knowledge of the right to refuse consent is a factor but not a requirement.

Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 1973


more serious intrusion of personal liberty than allowable on mere suspicion of criminal activity taints the consent and makes the search illegal.

Florida v Royer, 1983
police conduct drug courier profile at Miami International Airport.. subj detained and requested that he follow officers to a room where they pryed open suitcase finding marijuana

consent given after an illegal act by police is not valid because such consent is tainted.


searches in which the person giving consent has "apparent authority" are valid

Illinois v Rodriguez, 1990
officers summoned to a house where a woman showed signs of assault. Woman stated that Rodriguez assaulted her earlier in day in an apt. officers believed that they still lived together and was let in by the woman with a key. inside apt officers saw drugs in plain view. arrested Rodriguez for assault and drugs.
Warrantless entry of private premises by officers is valid based on consent of third party whom police reasonably believed to possess common authority over premises, who in fact did not have.


apparent authority

rule in searches with consent. Rule says that consent given by third party who police reasonably believe to possess common authority over premises is valid even if it is later established that the person did not in fact have that authority..
For the rule to apply, the belief by police must be reasonable, considering the circumstances


consent justifies the warrantless search of container in a car if it is objectively reasonable for the police to believe that the scope of the suspects consent permitted them to open that container

Florida v Jimeno, 1991
Dade County police officer overheard Jimeno arranging what appeared to be a drug transaction over a public telephone. officer followed Jimeno car and made a lawful traffic stop. after citation, officer asked permission to search car. with consent, officer found cocaine in brown paper bag.


standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under 4th Amend is that of ?

objective reasonableness- what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and suspect.


a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident

Georgia v Randolph, 2006
officers responded to family disturbance. wife told officers of husband drug use and advised that there is drugs in bedroom. Randolph refused consent for officers to search. wife consented. officers arrested Randolph. Evidence inadmissible.


Court also held that the ruling in Randolph does not apply to cases where the person giving consent is in position of authority in a __.

recognized hierarchy, such as parent and child.