Defendant lived in the basement of Flynn\u2019s house in St. Louis, and Flynn discovered a meth lab. Flynn called the police and consented to their entry and search. Defendant\u2019s relationship to the basement was difficult and uncertain, so the court assumes standing, but more than one person stayed down there, and it wasn\u2019t clear what his privacy relationship was to the basement. It seemed that it wasn\u2019t sufficiently private that Flynn couldn\u2019t consent. United States v. Hendrix, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53823 (E.D. Mo. March 30, 2012):<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of this case, Officer Page and the other officers acted reasonably. When they arrived at 3232 California, they knocked on the front door and it was opened by a man who said he was Thomas Flynn who had phoned them earlier about a meth lab in his basement, operated by a friend of his. He then led the officers to the basement door, which was already open. Flynn had not asked anyone for permission to admit the officers into the residence nor to take the officers to the doorway leading to the basement stairs. His actions reasonably led the officers to believe that, like the woman in the doorway with the baby on her hip in Matlock<\/a>, Flynn showed he belonged in the residence and had sufficient authority over it, including the basement area, to further authorize the police to enter not only the residence generally but also to go downstairs to investigate the possibly criminal activity about which he had called them. United States v. Almeida-Perez<\/a>, 549 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (8th Cir. 2008). The officers’ entry into the basement room of defendant was constitutionally authorized by the consent of Thomas Flynn.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading