M.D.La.: An interstate bus driver has common authority to consent to search of luggage on his bus[!]

Defendant was a passenger on a Tornado Bus Company bus, a company that hauls primarily Hispanic passengers around the U.S. This trip was from Houston to Atlanta. The bus was stopped in Louisiana for swerving over the line. The driver consented to a dog sniff of the luggage compartment which extended the stop, resolving a credibility question, three minutes, not thirty. Bags were searched, but the dog alerted more so on a particular bag, and meth was found. [The opinion is long and detailed on factors of consent, but the court actually goes too far and finds that the driver had common authority over the luggage to consent, which one cannot remotely buy into. Automobile exception would have applied, but it’s unmentioned.] United States v. Hernandez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23730 (M.D.La. February 27, 2015):

In this case, the Defendant, the bus driver, and Tornado Bus Company had common authority over the luggage compartment of the bus and its contents. Clearly, “[c]onsent by a person who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against a non-consenting person with whom that authority is shared.” Thus, under the applicable law, Romero’s consent to search the luggage compartment of the bus was also imputed to the Defendant. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the motion to suppress the evidence is DENIED.

This entry was posted in Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.