General consent to search a home includes opening locked interior doors; there is no duty to inquire further

Generalized consent to search premises includes consent to open locked doors. United States v. Pikyavit, 527 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2008):

The police had no obligation in the circumstances here to ask Pikyavit what they should do if they found the door locked, as it was up to Pikyavit to limit or condition the search if that was his intent. See Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 252 (“A suspect may of course delimit as he chooses the scope of the search to which he consents. But if his consent would reasonably be understood to extend to a particular container, the Fourth Amendment provides no grounds for requiring a more explicit authorization.”); United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1177 (10th Cir. 2000) (“The scope of the consent to search is limited by the breadth of the consent given.”); United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 957 (3d Cir. 1994) (“Of course [defendant] could have limited his consent to certain items, but he had the burden to express that limitation ….”). It was reasonable for the police to conclude that Pikyavit would have wanted them to enter the home if it could be done quickly and without damaging the premises. And, in fact, the police were able to slip the lock without damaging either the lock or the door itself.

Reasonable suspicion is not needed for dog sniff of a UPS package in transit. It is different than a suitcase. Lindo v. State, 983 So. 2d 672 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 2008), released for publication July 7, 2008.*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.