Search and Seizure — warrantless searches – consent — apparent authority

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Search and Seizure — warrantless searches – consent — apparent authority

Where a co-tenant had apparent authority to consent to a search of the defendant’s bedroom, the warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

“There is nothing in this case that should have alerted the police to an atypical arrangement. Richards did not object to the officers’ entry of the west bedroom. Rawls did not seek anyone’s approval before letting the officers search the house. Rawls did not tell the officers they could not go in the west bedroom. None of the other occupants in Rawls’ house told the officers that they were not permitted to enter the west bedroom. There were no signs posted that the west bedroom was private or off limits. The door was unlocked at the time of the search. Richards never indicated that the padlock was his. Based on the facts known to the officers at the time, it was reasonable for them to believe that it was Rawls that placed the padlock on the door, not Richards. Once Rawls consented to a warrantless search, the officers were not required to ‘take affirmative steps to find a potentially objecting co-tenant before acting on the permission they already received.’ Id. at 122.”

Affirmed.

12-3763 U.S. v. Richards

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Springmann, J., Bauer, J.