PA: Occupant of house lacked authority to consent to search intended guest’s luggage

Defendant left luggage and a shaving kit at his girlfriend’s apartment because he was coming back there to spend the night. They get stopped and defendant gets arrested. Defendant is a suspect in a robbery. The police get consent from the girlfriend to search the apartment. That consent, however, could not extend to defendant’s luggage and shaving kit. He obviously had an expectation of privacy in those containers that society would recognize. If there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the luggage on the bus in Bonds, then surely Perel did in his luggage in an apartment. “Viewing the instant matter in light of these principles, the Commonwealth’s attempt to show the legitimacy of Smith’s consent falls short. The facts known to the police at the time of the search were such that an objectively reasonable officer would have concluded that Smith did not have authority to consent to the search of Perel’s baggage.” Commonwealth v. Perel, 2014 PA Super 283, 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4572 (December 23, 2014) (dissent).

A collection of facts about defendant’s trips to buy heroin out of state and a CI buying from his house was nexus to the house. United States v. Black, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176762 (W.D. N.C. November 19, 2014).*