What Constitutes Valid Consent When One Co-Occupant Consents and the Other Co-Occupant Does Not?
Generally, officers may obtain a valid consent to search only from a person whose reasonable expectation of privacy may be invaded by the proposed search. Sometimes two or more people—for example, spouses or roommates—share a reasonable expectation of privacy in the same place. Generally, either person may give valid consent to an officer. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (common authority over premises found). However, as discussed below, an exception to this general rule may exist when a physically-present occupant objects. Georgia v. Randolph. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), that if a physically present occupant refuses to consent to a search of a place and a co-occupant consents, the Fourth Amendment prohibits a search based on the co-occupant’s consent. The Court made clear that its ruling applies only to a physically present occupant who refuses to consent, as long as officers do not remove a potentially objecting occupant from the entrance to the residence in order to avoid a possible refusal to consent (however, see the discussion of Fernandez v. California, discussed below, concerning a legitimate reason to remove an objecting occupant). The Court stated that when officers have obtained consent from a co-occupant, they have no obligation to seek out any other occupants to determine if they want to refuse to allow consent. The Court placed other limits on the scope of its ruling. The Court noted that the issue of consent is irrelevant when an occupant on his [...]
