Guest lacked authority to consent to home search in drug investigation

March 05, 2014

Under the United States Constitution, evidence seized following an illegal entry into a home is inadmissible and should be suppressed from any criminal proceedings. A search that would otherwise be illegal may still be allowed, though, if the appropriate party consented to the search.

However, what if the person providing the consent to search the home is a houseguest? The recent United States Court of Appeals case of U.S. v. Arreguin provides a discussion of this area of the law.

A consent to search . . . from a houseguest

Nine law enforcement officers, including two DEA agents, were conducting a "knock and talk" investigation in Riverside, California. They chose the defendant's house because there had allegedly been drug-related activity there before.

At that time, the occupants inside the house were the defendant, his wife with an infant, and a houseguest. When the houseguest answered the door, the agents asked if they could come in and look around. The houseguest said yes and stepped back from the doorway.

The agents entered the house and eventually proceeded to the master bedroom. The door to the attached bathroom was open and the agent saw a blue shoebox, with its cover allegedly removed, and a white substance inside. Oddly, a second door in the master bedroom connected to the garage, and when the agent proceeded through that door, he discovered bundles of cash in a Gucci bag.

At the same time, the defendant was explaining to one of the other agents that he and his wife lived in the house and that the houseguest was an illegal alien. After the discovery of the shoebox, the defendant consented to a search via a consent-to-search form and bricks of methamphetamine were discovered thereafter.

At trial, the defendant pled guilty to the drug charges, but appealed on the grounds that the evidence found at his home should be suppressed, as the search was illegal.

Did the houseguest have "apparent authority?"

A search consented to by a third party is valid only if the officers reasonably believe that the person from whom they obtain consent has the actual authority to grant that consent. Such "apparent authority" is measured by an objective standard of reasonableness.

When the agents arrived at the home, they knew virtually nothing about the person who answered the door, the configuration of the rooms inside the home, or the houseguest's authority over the other areas of the house. The agents did not ask the houseguest any additional questions and instead quickly rushed past him after the consent.

The Court of Appeals held that the fact the houseguest answered the door was not, by itself, enough to justify a reasonable belief that he had authority to consent to the search of the entire master bedroom area. With the limited facts available to the agents, it was not reasonable to presume that the houseguest enjoyed joint use, access, or control over the master bedroom area. Thus, the evidence found should have been suppressed and the decision against the defendant was reversed.

Fighting the charges brought against you

If you are charged with a drug crime, you may be facing a severe jail sentence, fines, and possibly even the loss of your driver's license or job. You should take these potential consequences very seriously and immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to fight the charges and mitigate the impact, while working to protect your rights and freedom.

Article provided by The Law Office of Charles B. Smith
Visit us at www.charlessmithcriminallaw.com