CA11: Def was outside while consent sought from cotenant inside; consent valid and Randolph doesn’t help him

The consent of a cotenant was voluntary and valid, and she clearly had apparent authority to do so. Defendant was nearby and outside, but the police made no effort to ask him for consent nor to segregate him to prevent it. Randolph doesn’t help defendant because he wasn’t asked for consent so didn’t get to refuse. If he had, that would be different. But, the police had no duty to seek him out to ask him, either. United States v. Morales, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17885 (11th Cir. June 29, 2018):

Had Morales objected to the search, it might be different. Cf. Randolph, 547 U.S. at 121, 126 S. Ct. at 1527. But he didn’t. And his failure to do so rests on him. Cf. L’Amoreux v. Vischer, 2 N.Y. 278, 281 (1849) (“[A] man who does not speak when he ought, shall not be heard when he desires to speak.”). Despite Morales’ assertions, the officers didn’t have a duty to ask him whether he objected to the search any more than the officers in Matlock had a duty to ask that defendant. See Randolph, 547 U.S. at 121, 126 S. Ct. at 1527; Matlock, 415 U.S. at 170-71, 94 S. Ct. at 993.

This entry was posted in Apparent authority. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.