CA11: Def’s silence when driver was asked to consent to search of a bag on passenger side floorboard was apparent authority

Defendant had standing to contest the search of his bag in a car, even though he wouldn’t have standing in the rest of the car. The driver had apparent authority to consent to a search of the bag and it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that because of defendant’s silence when the driver was asked about the bag and consenting to its search. United States v. Barber, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1659 (11th Cir. February 3, 2015):

The district court did not err when it determined that Robinson had apparent authority to consent to the search of the bag. The bag’s placement on the passenger-side floorboard, within easy reach of Robinson, coupled with Barber’s silence during the search, made it reasonable to believe Robinson had common authority over the bag. Drivers do not ordinarily place their bags on the driver-side floorboard, but drivers sometimes use the passenger-side floorboard to store their belongings. The officers could have reasonably believed Robinson had common authority over the bag. And because Robinson had apparent authority to consent to the search, we need not decide whether he had actual authority to do so.

Barber’s reliance on United States v. Jaras, 86 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996), is misplaced. In Jaras, the officers were told that the bag they searched did not belong to the consenting party. Officer Rodriguez testified that he “believed” the bag belonged to Barber, but did not “know” to whom it belonged. No one told Officer Rodriguez that the bag did not belong to Robinson.