Essay on The Rights Under The Fourth Amendment
The primary question before this Court is whether police officers must make a further inquiry when faced with an ambiguity regarding a third party’s consent to search. The Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken different views when deciding the actions a police officer must take when faced with an ambiguity pertaining to third party consent.
It is crucial to our society that a person’s right to privacy is protected and able to be exercised. The Fourth Amendment was created by our Founding Fathers for this exact reason. If a police officer can conduct a warrantless search without receiving adequate consent then our Fourth Amendment right to privacy will continue to be violated, a violation our great Constitution does not permit.
In Matlock, the court decided that a third party could give consent to search if they had common authority over the object or premises. U.S. v. Matlock, 415 S. Ct. 164, 171 (1974). Common authority is not to be based on a property interest, but should rather be based on mutual use of the property by persons who have joint access or control. Id. at 170. The Supreme Court changed it’s standard on third party consent in Illinois v. Rodriguez when they explained police are…