CA8: Minor child could consent to search and seizure of camera hidden in her bathroom

This court rejects the notion that a minor never has the apparent authority to consent to a search, here of a camera in the house. The minor was defendant’s 14-year-old daughter, and defendant and the mother had visitation. She found the camera in her bathroom, and she could consent to the police looking at it. United States v. Bermel, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32720 (8th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023).

There is no violation of the implied license or consent to enter where defendant permitted a CI into his motel room and the CI surreptitiously video recorded the interaction. United States v. Esqueda, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32738 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023). (This is so settled, albeit here exceeding the scope of consent that it’s surprising this is for publication.)

“The district court concluded that the Defendant Officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Mercedes under New York Mental Hygiene Law (‘NY MHL’) § 9.41. We do not reach that issue, as we conclude that there was arguable probable cause to arrest under New York Penal Law (‘NYPL’) § 240.26(1).” Mercedes v. City of N.Y., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32725 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Consent, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.