ND: When two in car remain silent as to which bag belongs to which person, consent to search is complete

When the driver and passenger remain silent as to who’s bag belongs to whom, the consent of one applies to all of it. State v. Asbach, 2016 ND 152, 2016 N.D. LEXIS 150 (July 20, 2016):

[*P16] The United States Supreme Court has held that when an officer informs the driver that he believes the vehicle contains illegal drugs and receives consent to search the vehicle, the search could reasonably extend to any container in that vehicle. See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251-52, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1991). Here, while it may have been unreasonable for Officer Bohn to believe all the luggage in the vehicle belonged to Walker, that does not preclude Officer Bohn from having reasonably believed Walker’s consent to search the vehicle extended to everything in it when Asbach specifically deferred to Walker on consent. As we stated in State v. Zimmerman, 529 N.W.2d 171, 175 (N.D. 1995) (citing Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188-89, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 111 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1990)), “Under the Fourth Amendment, therefore, valid consent to search may be given by parties with actual or apparent common authority, when viewed from the officer’s perspective.” The district court, however, found it was not reasonable for the officer to believe here that Walker had the authority to consent to a search of all the luggage in the vehicle. We conclude there was sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding of unreasonableness, and the finding is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The district court further found the officer did not act in bad faith: …