Apparent authority of teenage girls to consent to search defendant’s room and computer

Two teenage girls staying in defendant’s house discovered a video camera installed in their wall clock and it fed into defendant’s computer in his bedroom. After three weeks, they informed somebody and the police were called. They could consent to the entry into their room, but, by all accounts, they had no apparent authority to consent to an entry of his room or his computer. The undisputed proof was that they needed permission for both, and they did not have it. The police justification of exigent circumstances was belied by the three week delay in the report. They should have obtained a warrant, if one would issue in that case [it might have if the private search was used to get the warrant, and PC was shown, and not the view of the police]. United States v. Peden, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61354 (E.D. Cal. August 9, 2007):

Moreover, with respect to “apparent authority,” the officers were not operating under any mistaken facts. They were aware that the two girls were minors who lived in defendant’s house. (Opp’n to Mot. to Suppress 3:1-5.) Moreover, they were aware that the computer resided in defendant’s bedroom, that it belonged to him, and that he granted the girls limited permission to use it that evening while he was gone. (Id. 3:9-10.) The government does not point to any mistaken facts which caused the officers to believe they were justified in their actions. Accordingly, the girls also did not have apparent authority to consent to the search.

Franks motion over a seizure of case denied. “Defendant’s general suggestion that the affidavits were imprecise as to who owned real property at issue does not meet this standard.” United States v. Lange, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61573 (D. Minn. August 14, 2007).*

The stop of defendant’s car was with probable cause, and an impoundment and inventory would have occurred in any event, so what was found was admissible. United States v. Clarkson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61107 (D. Utah August 20, 2007).*

Landlord’s complaint to the police that a former tenant had returned as a trespasser to smoke dope in the premises and the police came to check it out and entered did not violate a Fourth Amendment right of the plaintiff. They also had to shoot plaintiff’s dog who was coming at them, and that was unanticipated but reasonably necessary. Conner v. Rendon, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61036 (W.D. Mich. August 20, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.