Argument
1. The judgement for Appellee should be affirmed because the Appellant’s mother had apparent authority to consent to the search of the shoebox.
Appellant’s mother, Ms. Fallsbauer, demonstrated apparent authority to consent to the search of the shoebox when she stated her prior ownership of the shoebox. (R. at 5.) Apparent authority exists when officers reasonably believe a third party has authority to consent to a search, but does not possess such authority. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 187 (1990). Ms. Fallsbauer lived in the studio apartment and had actual authority to consent to the search of the common area in the apartment. (R. at 2.); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 169 (1974). Ms. Fallsbauer explicitly consented …show more content…
(R. at 5.) Objects left in plain view are not regarded with an expectation of privacy, because the owner has left them exposed to the public. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967); Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 137 (2015). Sergeant Wilson and her partner inquired as to ownership of the shoebox and Ms. Fallsbauer confirmed that she had owned the shoebox. (R. at 5.) At this point the officers were presented with no information indicating that Ms. Fallsbauer lacked authority to consent to the search of the shoebox. (R. 3, 4, 5.) The Record displays a picture of “Mr. Fallsbauer’s portion of the studio.” (R. at 4.) However, the contents in the picture are very gender neutral and do not indicate Mr. Fallsbauer’s authority over the area. (R. at 4.) The only evidence available to the officers prior to searching the shoebox was that Ms. Fallsbauer signed the consent form answering “Not Applicable” to the exception to search section and confirmed her previous ownership of the shoebox. (R. at 3, 5.) Therefore, the officers were reasonable in believing Ms. Fallsbauer had authority to consent to the search of the shoebox sitting unmarked, in plain view. (R. at 4.)
In United States v. Cork, the Sixth Circuit held that it was reasonable for officers to believe a mother’s authority to consent to the search her son’s room, extended to a shoebox under a bed in his room. 18 Fed. Appx. 376, 383 (6th Cir. 2001). The court stated that the son manifested no expectation of privacy in the shoebox and focused on his actions regarding the shoebox. Id. The son failed to mark, label, tape, seal, or lock the shoebox. Id. He simply placed it under a bed in his room, which did not establish concealment of the shoebox.
1. The judgement for Appellee should be affirmed because the Appellant’s mother had apparent authority to consent to the search of the shoebox.
Appellant’s mother, Ms. Fallsbauer, demonstrated apparent authority to consent to the search of the shoebox when she stated her prior ownership of the shoebox. (R. at 5.) Apparent authority exists when officers reasonably believe a third party has authority to consent to a search, but does not possess such authority. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 187 (1990). Ms. Fallsbauer lived in the studio apartment and had actual authority to consent to the search of the common area in the apartment. (R. at 2.); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 169 (1974). Ms. Fallsbauer explicitly consented …show more content…
(R. at 5.) Objects left in plain view are not regarded with an expectation of privacy, because the owner has left them exposed to the public. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967); Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 137 (2015). Sergeant Wilson and her partner inquired as to ownership of the shoebox and Ms. Fallsbauer confirmed that she had owned the shoebox. (R. at 5.) At this point the officers were presented with no information indicating that Ms. Fallsbauer lacked authority to consent to the search of the shoebox. (R. 3, 4, 5.) The Record displays a picture of “Mr. Fallsbauer’s portion of the studio.” (R. at 4.) However, the contents in the picture are very gender neutral and do not indicate Mr. Fallsbauer’s authority over the area. (R. at 4.) The only evidence available to the officers prior to searching the shoebox was that Ms. Fallsbauer signed the consent form answering “Not Applicable” to the exception to search section and confirmed her previous ownership of the shoebox. (R. at 3, 5.) Therefore, the officers were reasonable in believing Ms. Fallsbauer had authority to consent to the search of the shoebox sitting unmarked, in plain view. (R. at 4.)
In United States v. Cork, the Sixth Circuit held that it was reasonable for officers to believe a mother’s authority to consent to the search her son’s room, extended to a shoebox under a bed in his room. 18 Fed. Appx. 376, 383 (6th Cir. 2001). The court stated that the son manifested no expectation of privacy in the shoebox and focused on his actions regarding the shoebox. Id. The son failed to mark, label, tape, seal, or lock the shoebox. Id. He simply placed it under a bed in his room, which did not establish concealment of the shoebox.