D.N.M.: Protective sweep valid to look for other pressure cooker bombs; parent has presumptive apparent authority to consent to search of adult child’s room

Defendant was suspected of making a pressure cooker bomb, which was found. (1) A protective sweep was proper to determine whether there were others in the house. (2) The house was owned by defendant’s father, and defendant merely lived there. Even crediting their testimony that defendant could lock his door and keep others out and that his parents never went in there uninvited, the presumption is that the parent has apparent authority to consent. United States v. Guillen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75832 (D. N.M. May 4, 2018). As to body camera:

After interviewing MC, four law enforcement officers went to Defendant’s home at around 9:43 p.m. that same day. Of the four officers, only APD Detective Larranga had a lapel camera video and had the good sense to have the device turned on recording events that were occurring. The Court notes that J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972 so perhaps the time has come for federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the ATF to follow the lead of other law enforcement agencies such as the APD and require agents to record most of their encounters with members of the public. Recording such encounters assists trial judges in making factual findings.

. . .

The Court has viewed the lapel cam footage capturing the agents’ entry into the Guillen residence several times, and finds this footage crucial to the Court’s determination on this issue. The discussion between the two brothers was inaudible, but after repeated viewings, it appears that Ethan said “Sure” to the agents’ second request to come inside, taking a step back while Tyler stepped off to the side in order to allow the agents to come in.

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.