CA6: There is no hierachy of interests under Randolph

Police came to do a knock-and-talk, and defendant objected to a search of the bedroom he shared with his wife. When he objected, the police took the wife and her mother outside to talk about consent. The district court’s effort to find a hierarchy of privacy interests in the home has no foundation in Randolph, and this consent over objection violated Randolph. United States v. Johnson, 656 F.3d 375, 2011 FED App. 0244P (6th Cir. 2011):

The district court interpreted this court’s decision in Ayoub, 498 F.3d 532, as “drawing a distinction [after Randolph] between superior possessory and privacy interest[s] and lesser possessory and privacy interests.” The district court stated that, “if one has a lesser privacy interest, then even the presence and active objection to a search by that person with a lesser possessory interest is not a problem if [the police] have received consent to search from an individual with a superior possessory and privacy interest.” However, we have drawn no such distinctions.

Also posted on Federal Criminal Appeals Blog. This case seems too much like the District Court strained to find a way to ignore Randolph–any way to support a conviction.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.