IN: Houseguest answering knock at door lacks apparent authority to consent to entry

“This case involves whether Bryant Beatty had apparent authority to consent to police entry into Defendant, Timmie Bradley’s, home. Specifically, does a houseguest, who happens to answer the door to a home shortly after he knocked to gain entry himself, have the apparent authority to consent to police entry? Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that he does not.” Entire entry invalid, including protective sweep. Bradley v. State, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 487 (July 7, 2016):

In support of its argument that it was reasonable for police to believe Beatty had authority over the premises, the State argues that “Beatty did not indicate that he was a guest or that he could not give consent.” (Brief in Opposition to Transfer at 8.) However, it is the State’s burden to prove that Beatty had the authority to consent. Primus, 813 N.E.2d at 375. In this case, the State failed to meet its burden because the only evidence the State had to support its position that Beatty had authority to consent was that Beatty had been to the home on one prior occasion and that he answered the door to the police, after knocking to gain entry himself. These facts do not demonstrate that the police had a reasonable belief that Beatty had authority over the premises. On the contrary, and notably, Detective Campbell testified that he had no idea if Beatty had any authority at all to consent to police entry.

The State also argues that Beatty had an “affiliation with [the] residence” because police observed him there on a prior occasion and he “acted as though he had authority to decide who could or could not enter the home” by answering the door. (Brief in Opposition to Transfer at 8.) However, there is no legal authority for the proposition that mere “affiliation” with the home is enough to establish apparent authority. Instead, as discussed above, actual authority requires a sufficient relationship to or mutual use of the property by persons generally “having joint access to or control [of the property] for most purposes.” Halsema, 823 N.E.2d at 677 (emphasis added). To prove apparent authority then, officers needed to prove that they held a reasonable belief that Beatty had authority over the home; that is, Beatty had joint access to or control of the property for most purposes. Thus, mere “affiliation” with the home, without more, is not enough to establish a reasonable belief that the consenting party had authority over the home; nor does merely answering the door to a home indicate authority over that home. There could be a number of situations where someone lacking joint access or control over the property, such as a houseguest or maintenance worker, could answer the door. Beatty’s visit to Bradley’s home on one prior occasion and the fact that he answered the door do not demonstrate to a reasonable person that Beatty had joint access and control over the home.