Owner of premises had apparent authority to consent to a search of all rooms. Defendant was present and did not object to the search of his room to show that he had separate control. United States v. Radillo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22751 (W.D. Mo. January 19, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
The Court finds that Anjanette Lewis had apparent, if not actual, authority over the entire residence. The officers had been told by Anjanette Lewis that she was the owner of the residence. … Anjanette Lewis signed a Consent to Search the \u201cresidence.\u201d … \u201cThe typical reasonable person would have understood this to mean every room, the sum of which is the house [i.e. the residence].\u201d United States v. Fleck<\/a>, 413 F.3d 883, 892 (8th Cir. 2005). The only other person who claimed to live at the residence, Monica Lewis, gave the officers verbal consent to search. … The officers had not threatened Anjanette Lewis or Monica Lewis in any way nor had they done anything to coerce their consent. … Defendant Radillo made no objections while the officers were searching the premises. There was no constitutional violation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officers had probable cause to stop defendant for \u201ctraveling at 82 miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit, which is a violation of the California Vehicle Code.\u201d And, defendant consented to the search of his vehicle. His actions showed an intent to consent, even if he did not understand English, which he never communicated to the officers. United States v. Sanchez-Palomino, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23562 (E.D. Cal. February 18, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading