The Prosecution Case Study

The Prosecution
In this case, the prosecutor can argue that the accused wife gave verbal consent to the police officers to search the resident, without the officers having to obtained a search warrant, and the police had significant probable cause to be at the resident. The prosecutor can argue that the consent from the accused wife was sufficient enough to search the resident, since she was a co-occupant of the resident. The prosecutor could argue that a warrant-less search conducted in the absence of probable cause is valid when one occupant give permission for the search, even if the other occupant objects by siting the case United States v. Matlock, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police can obtain consent for a search from a third party, if the third party has common authority over the premises (United States v. Matlock).
The Courts have knowledge and understanding that during such instance situations can change quickly and because of this, police officers do not have time to wait for a warrant. In this case the police officers conducted a warrant-less search when …show more content…
The defense can argue that the accused clearly refused to the search when the officers asked permission to search, stating that his client’s wife could not waive her husband Fourth Amendment rights after he had already exercise it. The defense could argue that United States v. Matlock has no bearing on the case, because it stands to reason that his client clearly objected to the search. The defense could rebuttal with the case of Georgia v. Randolph, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that without a search warrant, police have no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consent to the search while another resident object (Georgia v.