A recent case that Harter & Schottland won is a good example of how the notion of “apparent authority” controls the validity of a search. A similar case was reviewed by an Illinois appellate court.

In People v. James, the defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by Urbana police officers. The officers directed the driver and passengers to step out of the car. When the defendant exited, she left her purse on the front passenger seat. An officer then escorted her away from the vehicle.

Unbeknownst to the defendant, the driver consented to a police search of the car. During this search, an officer opened the defendant’s purse and found cocaine.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that she had not consented to the search and that the driver lacked authority to consent to a search of her purse.

The State contended that the officer might have assumed the purse belonged to the driver, giving the driver apparent authority to consent. The State also argued that the defendant assumed the risk that the driver would agree to a search of the car and its contents, including her purse. They further asserted that it would be impractical to require officers to confirm consent for every occupant’s belongings.

On appeal, the court focused on whether the driver had the apparent authority to consent to the search of her passenger’s purse.

The appellate court held that the officer should have ascertained who owned the purse before searching it. It would have been objectively reasonable to recognize that the purse might belong to one of the passengers, not the driver. A purse is normally carried by a woman, and since all the adult occupants of the car were women, it could have belonged to any of them. Moreover, the purse was found on a passenger seat, not the driver’s seat—further suggesting it belonged to a passenger. The court emphasized that a purse is not typically shared property between individuals.

Therefore, the court ruled that the officer acted unreasonably by searching the purse without knowing its owner.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Its fundamental purpose is to safeguard the legitimate expectations of privacy that citizens hold in their persons, homes, and belongings.

People v. James—along with Harter & Schottland’s recent victory—demonstrates that this important right requires police to act reasonably, even when relying on consent to search.

The post Consent to search appeared first on Harter & Schottland.