Positive UA of a parolee justifies a home search for drugs. United States v. Randle, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64490 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2009).<\/p>\n
Defendant’s live-in girlfriend of three months had apparent authority to consent to a search of the premises which included taking defendant’s computer after she found child porn in the house. She essentially had unrestrained access. Even if she lacked actual authority, she had apparent authority. United States v. Nichols<\/a>, 574 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2009):<\/p>\n Additionally, we note that even had M.L. lacked common authority, her consent was still effective because police officers had reason to believe she had common authority. A search is justified without a warrant where officers reasonably rely on the consent of a third party who demonstrates apparent authority to authorize the search, even if the third party lacks common authority. See Illinois v. Rodriguez<\/a>, 497 U.S. 177, 188, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 111 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1990). Apparent authority is present when “the facts available to the officer at the moment … warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” Id. (quotation omitted); see Almeida-Perez, 549 F.3d at 1171 (finding authority where the person providing consent had traveled freely in and out of the home, invited officers in, and was reposing on the front porch). Here, M.L. telephoned officers and had them meet her at the house. She met the officers at the door, explained to them her relationship with Nichols, freely operated the computer to show officers the disk’s contents, and appeared familiar with the home. These circumstances suggest that officers were justified in believing that M.L. was an occupant of the home capable of granting consent. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Nichols’s motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Heavy object in pocket + reluctant to remove hands = reasonable suspicion. United States v. Pittman<\/a>, 338 Fed. Appx. 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n Firefighters entered defendant’s home in a bona fide emergency and saw child porn in plain view, and this validly formed the basis of PC for a search warrant. United States v. Hill<\/a>, 338 Fed. Appx. 855 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading