Shoe Box Case

Finally, Ms. Poe did not deny her access to or control over the container. Moments prior to the search, officers directly asked if the shoebox was hers. She replied simply that she was the one who had placed the shoebox on the dresser and had done so “a while back”. (5) This points to her at some point having actual possession of the container and would lead a reasonable officer to believe that she would still maintain access to or control over the shoebox. The appellant will argue that the words written on the container, the location of the container, and that Ms. Poe placed the shoebox in its current location “a while back” would preclude a reasonable officer from relying on her apparent authority. The words written on the container show no more than that Mr. Poe was in some fashion making use of the container. The word “KEEP” on top of the shoebox does not manifest his expectation of …show more content…
The Seventh Circuit has held searches of containers to be reasonable where there is no reliable or positive information available to officers indicating that the party consenting did not exercise control over the item. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2000). Holding in the contrary would compel officers to directly question the consenting party about each container they come across, even if it is located in an area over which they had common authority to consent. Id. at 1042. Short of reliable or positive information to cloud a third party’s apparent authority, requiring them to ask about each separate container would place an undue burden on law enforcement, a group already heavily regulated and constrained in their actions. If this type of information is not available, they must have the court’s support when making reasonable decisions, relying on training and experience, based on the totality of the circumstances and information they have at that