ID: The fact somebody could use the bathroom in defendant’s house did not give apparent authority to consent to search it

The fact the consenter had permission to use the defendant’s bathroom did not give the consenter apparent authority to consent to a search of the bathroom. State v. Hansen, 2010 Ida. App. LEXIS 60 (July 15, 2010):

The State’s showing that Kirsch had permission to use bathroom facilities in Hansen’s house does not establish that he had “joint access or control for most purposes.” The evidence does not even show whether Kirsch had a key and could enter whenever he wished or could enter only when a resident was at home. There was no evidence that the residents had expressly or impliedly authorized Kirsch to admit others into the house. Kirsch’s mere permission to use the bathroom in the home did not, in our view, confer “the right to permit inspection” of the bathroom such that inhabitants of the home had assumed that risk.

.

Report to the police of men with a gun was specific and corroborated when they were seen, justifying the stop. State v. Deluca, 40 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA July 16, 2010).*

The passenger was nervous and sitting on his hand and wouldn’t look at the officer. This justified a pat-frisk of the passenger for weapons. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 259, 929 N.E.2d 992 (2010).*