{"id":9056,"date":"2013-09-07T08:25:34","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T08:05:49","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T08:05:49","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9056","title":{"rendered":"MA: Apparent authority to consent is based on objective facts"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The grandmother of a child sex victim called 911 and led police into the house to talk to the child. She had apparent authority to consent to a search and seizure of a couch cushion with semen on it. The facts presented to them were enough to conclude she could consent.  <a href=\"http:\/\/weblinks.westlaw.com\/result\/default.wl?rs=MAOR1.0&amp;ss=CNT&amp;cnt=DOC&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;method=TNC&amp;service=Search&amp;fn=_top&amp;sskey=CLID_SSSA298473586137&amp;db=MA-ORSLIP&amp;fmqv=c&amp;action=Search&amp;origin=Search&amp;vr=1.0&amp;rlt=CLID_QRYRLT926894586137&amp;query=TO(ALLSCT+ALLSCTRS+ALLSCTOJ)&amp;mt=Westlaw&amp;rlti=1&amp;n=7&amp;rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&amp;sp=MassOF-1001&amp;rltdb=CLID_DB448003586137&amp;eq=search&amp;sv=Split\">Commonwealth v. Santos<\/a>, 465 Mass. 689, 991 N.E.2d 1049 (2013):<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We take this opportunity to clarify the two-step inquiry required when police enter a home, without a warrant and absent exigent circumstances, after they gain consent from someone they believe to have actual authority over the premises. See Commonwealth v. Porter P., supra at 271-272. We conclude that, in situations such as the one here, police need not conduct a &#8220;further inquiry,&#8221; the second part of the due diligence analysis, where they possess sufficient facts to form the basis for a reasonable conclusion that a third party has authority to give consent to enter a defendant&#8217;s home. See id. (first part of diligent inquiry is that officers&#8217; conclusion must be based on facts, not assumptions). In other words, &#8220;police have a duty of further inquiry&#8221; when faced with &#8220;contrary facts tending to suggest that the person consenting to the search lacks actual authority.&#8221; Id. at 272, 273 n.18. Absent those contrary facts or &#8220;surrounding circumstances [that] could conceivably be such that a reasonable person would doubt its truth,&#8221; id. at 272, quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra at 188, an officer&#8217;s conclusion that he has consent to enter a premises, if based on &#8220;facts, not assumptions or impressions,&#8221; may satisfy the first of the two-part inquiry of due diligence. See id. at 271; Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra at 188.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We evaluate the reasonableness of a police officer&#8217;s conduct based on the information available to him at the time, not on what we later learn to be true.&#8221; Commonwealth v. Porter P., supra at 270. &#8220;As with other factual determinations bearing upon search and seizure, determination of consent to enter must &#8216;be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment &#8230; &#8220;warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief&#8221;&#8216; that the consenting party had authority over the premises?&#8221; Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra, quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Here, the parties do not contest that the mother lacked actual authority to allow entry into the first-floor apartment. Our inquiry therefore hinges on the sufficiency of the facts on which officers relied when they concluded that they had consent to enter the defendant&#8217;s home.  See Commonwealth v. Porter P., supra at 271.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9056\">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-9056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9056","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=9056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}