Consent Searches: a Brief Review
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 14 No. 5 Pg. 795 |
| Pages | 795 |
| Publication year | 1985 |
1985, May, Pg. 795. Consent Searches: A Brief Review
Evidence seized by police pursuant to a consent search can be challenged under several legal theories. First, consent is invalid if the defendant is illegally detained when voluntary consent is obtained. Second, if the consent is not given voluntarily but is merely acquiescence to the entry of the police, the search is defective. Third, the defendant can limit the scope of the consent and restrict the area and extent of the search. If police exceed those limits, suppression is mandated. Finally, where third parties consent to a search of the defendant's property, the third party may be without legal authority to authorize the search.
These issues are often overlooked by lawyers in assessing the validity of a search. The criminal practitioner should be aware that fertile grounds for suppression may exist even in the face of an apparently valid consent. This article reviews recent U.S. and Colorado Supreme Court cases in this area.
In Florida v. Royer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a voluntary consent to search, obtained while the defendant was illegally in police custody, was invalid.(fn1)
Defendant Royer was first observed by police at Miami International Airport. The officers had no basis to believe Royer had committed a crime. However, Royer's behavior and appearance fit the "drug courier profile." As Royer headed up the concourse to the boarding area, two detectives approached him, identified themselves as police officers, and asked to speak with him. Royer agreed.
Upon request, Royer gave the detectives his airline ticket and driver's license. The airline ticket, as well as the baggage identification tags, bore the name Holt, not Royer. When asked about the discrepancy, Royer told the detectives a friend of his had made the reservations in the name Holt. The defendant became noticeably more nervous while speaking to the police. The officers then informed Royer that they were in fact narcotics investigators and that they had reason to suspect the defendant of transporting drugs.
The detectives did not return Royer's airline ticket and identification. They asked Royer to accompany them to a room approximately forty feet away. Royer said nothing in response but went with the officers as he had been asked to do. Without the defendant's consent, one of the detectives used Royer's baggage check stubs to retrieve Royer's luggage from the airline. The luggage was brought to the room where Royer and the other detective were waiting.
The defendant was asked if he would consent to a search of the suitcases. Without orally responding to the request, Royer produced a key and unlocked one of the suitcases. The detective then opened the suitcase without further assent from Royer. Drugs were found in that suitcase. Royer consented to a search of the other suitcase. More marijuana was found in that suitcase. Royer was then told he was under arrest. Fifteen minutes passed between the initial contact on the concourse and the discovery of the marijuana.
The voluntariness of the consent given by Royer was never at issue in the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Florida Court of Appeals that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage.(fn2) Instead, the Supreme Court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial