Reasonable belief of apparent authority is all that is required when searching for a fugitive, which is a lower threshold

A reasonable belief of the consenter’s authority to permit entry to look for a fugitive is all that is required. The police are not expected or required to ask for proof of authority. Authority to enter looking for a fugitive is different that authority to conduct a general search. State v. Strader, 593 Pa. 421, 931 A.2d 630 (2007):

As Judge Klein notes, people in another’s home may or may not have much authority, for homeowners may or may not spell out for guests or people happening to be in their home exactly what authority they have. However, the question is what is apparent, not actual, and the reasonableness of the police belief in that apparent authority. From the perspective of police at the time of the encounter here, it was reasonable to conclude Thornton had the authority to control who entered the apartment. Thornton said he was in charge and he let police in. The totality of circumstances in each case controls whether police have a reasonable belief the person consenting to the search has authority to do so. We decline to adopt Judge Klein’s reasoning, which would require proof of actual authority, which is not the rule the United States Supreme Court has established.

We also note it is more reasonable for police to believe the person has the authority to grant consent to search for a fugitive; they did not seek to search through the homeowner’s private papers and other materials. As with any suppression claim, it is the information known at the time, not that learned after the fact, that controls the legal analysis. A search for a fugitive is generally short in duration, as it is hard to hide a person from view, particularly inside a smaller residence like an apartment. Entry here did not involve a search for drugs, even though probable cause for drugs became apparent after entry.

Police securing the premises pending getting a search warrant by having the locks changed and keeping the keys was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Tyson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71637 (W.D. N.Y. September 26, 2007).*

Search of wrong house led to a jury verdict of $1. Motion for new trial is denied because the jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence. Smith v. City of Jacksonville, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71730 (E.D. Ark. September 25, 2007).*

Informant’s tip was corroborated by a controlled buy. United States v. Hart, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71599 (E.D. Mo. September 25, 2007).*

Directing a person to sit in a police car is not a de facto arrest, but it is governed by the reasonableness standard. Here, there was reasonable suspicion to have plaintiff sit in the car because of allegations he was involved in a domestic disturbance. Rakun v. Kendall County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72061 (W.D. Tex. September 24, 2007).*

Defendant’s lane changes in traffic and his broken windshield justified his stop. State v. Collins, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 758 (September 27, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.