OR: Common authority over space does not mean common authority over all items in that space

Common authority over space does not mean common authority over all items in that space. Just because people could go into defendant’s bedroom does not mean that they had common authority over everything in the room. There was no common authority over a wooden box that was defendant’s. State v. Bonilla, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1661 (December 3, 2014):

Significantly–and, here, ultimately dispositively–the presumption of authority to consent to a search of jointly occupied space does not categorically apply with respect to searches of items within that space: “[A]uthority to consent to a search of an area is not necessarily coextensive with authority to consent to a search of personal items within that area.” Fuller, 158 Ore App at 506. Rather, with respect to items of personal property within jointly occupied space, a co-occupant’s actual authority to consent to a search depends on that person’s use of, or access to, those items. Id. In that regard, we “look at whether the effects are communally used by the parties or exclusively used by one party[.]” Id. (citations omitted).

Returning to the particulars of this case, as noted, defendant first argues that Dabbs lacked actual authority to consent to the officers’ entry into the storage area of the converted garage–which, in turn, gave the officers access to the door of the apartment. However, we need not resolve that question if we ultimately agree with defendant that, in all events, Bull lacked actual authority to consent to a search of the wooden box that contained the methamphetamine. Accordingly, we start–and end–with that matter.

Both parties agree that Bull had common authority over the shared bedroom and, therefore, could consent to a search of the bedroom space. However, as noted, “authority to consent to a search of an area is not necessarily coextensive with authority to consent to a search of personal items within that area.” Fuller, 158 Ore App at 506 (emphasis added). Again, as noted, the determination of whether a roommate can authorize the search of effects within a particular area “depends on the extent of the roommate’s use of, access to, and control of the premises, or effects therein,” which includes, in part, “whether the effects are communally used by the parties, or exclusively used by one party[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Fuller is illustrative. …