{"id":1257,"date":"2007-11-01T10:15:34","date_gmt":"2007-08-17T08:41:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-17T08:41:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1257","title":{"rendered":"Daughter left in control of parents&#8217; house while they were out of the country had apparent authority to consent"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant&#8217;s parents, the owners of the property, went overseas on a trip, and they left their daughter in control of their house. The police showed up and sought and received consent to enter. Defendant, a son of the parents, was allegedly running a drug operation from his parent&#8217;s house. He cited a case involving a handyman who obviously did not have common authority, and a case involving intentional bypass of a person with a superior interest in the property. Here, there was no intentional bypass because the parents were more than just unavailable. The daughter was in control of the property at the time, and this did not involve bypass of one with a superior property interest. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/07a0322p-06.pdf\">United States v. Ayoub<\/a>, 498 F.3d 532, 2007 FED App. 0322P (6th Cir. 2007):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Having established that Atoui possessed authority to consent to a search of her parents&#8217; home, the next question is whether Ayoub&#8217;s asserted possessory interest in the home eliminated Atoui&#8217;s authority to consent to the search. Even assuming that Ayoub had a possessory interest in the home and that it was greater than Atoui&#8217;s&#8211;a colorable assumption, as he was seen going to and from the house&#8211;he never cut off Atoui&#8217;s authority to consent to the search. Unlike the defendant in Jones, Ayoub never denied consent. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant&#8217;s confession two days after an illegal search was attenuated to dissipate the taint under the four part test of <em><a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?navby=case&amp;court=us&amp;vol=422&amp;page=590\">Brown v. Illinois<\/a><\/em> which the court analyzed and found satisfied. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca1.uscourts.gov\/cgi-bin\/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1853.01A\">United States v. Stark<\/a>, 499 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2007):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>To determine whether the initial taint has been removed, we must balance the following factors: (1) the voluntariness of the statement; (2) &#8220;[t]he temporal proximity&#8221; of the illegal search and the confession; (3) &#8220;the presence of intervening circumstances&#8221;; and (4) &#8220;the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct&#8221; (&#8220;<em>Brown<\/em> factors&#8221;). <em>Brown v. Illinois<\/em>, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Consent to open the door to look at VIN on door after already having seen it through the windshield was valid, even though the officer was able to look at seat bolts and determine that they had been tampered with, and that gave cause to go further. The officer already had reasonable suspicion from answers to questions. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/07\/08\/064120P.pdf\">United States v. Grajeda<\/a>, 497 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2007).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1257\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1257","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1257","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1257"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1257\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}