they were staying overnight at her it's house it's unclear how long the state was or how frequent they how frequently they stayed overnight however it was canter's understanding that they were staying overnight at her house scent in the living room i went over the forms signed consent forms in the living room started their search there as well in the living room they came across the laundry bags on the floor curry pointed out that these were defendants laundry bags there were also laundry bags in the cost cases positive to the living room however that door was not locked in the closet in fact there miss curry that the minister under arrest i think the logical flow of that conversation to point out well these are their backs these are not mine there are many reasons to do that fernand first california very recent supreme court case well she did that she told them the bags belong to the gentleman so my question to you is what should the police have done instead of just going ahead and searching bags what is your position as to what they shoot it down at that point well i think they were they had a reasonable belief that she would have access to the bag they were in her living her out as far as the police others to enter and examine the premises there is no reason why the owner should not be permitted to extend the same privilege to police officers if that is your choice again fernandez is a little bit here because of her arrest because of the prior arrest  it involves at least someone who was not a resident at the apartment one of the errors i think the trouble made here is basically giving the overnight guests more and more of an expectation of privacy than they cohabited a spouse a roommate something like that when in reality that obviously someone who lives in the house would have a greater expectation of privacy over night  consent to the search of these bags because again they were in a common room it wasn't a situation where they were folded up in a closet or even stored in a bedroom closet or something place where someone would commonly sleep if there were no gas they were in  a common area living room and the adjacent closet and then this didn't involve a suitcase or a bag again i don't think it involved a close container however the  the right to invite police into the dwelling and conduct a search any other rule trample on the rights of the occupant who is willing to consent such a knock you may want the police to search in order to dispel suspicion raised by sharing quarters with a criminal and of the apartment gave consent to search and i don't think here's something that is profit that the police couldn't search in the apartment and so isn't that then putting aside that this it's a further search within a closed container that has been identified as being the defendant's property without consent to search that property again i think that the fernandez principles show that a homeowner shouldn't be held hostage in their own home when there's even if it is that if you want to deem it closed container if someone brings a suitcase into your house unknowingly to the homeowner that has contraband dangerous commander and illegal contraband inside it that if that person subsequently arrested they come to that that the police come to the house informed the homeowner i mean i know my initial reaction would be like hate this this is this is this stuff i'm not taking responsibility for this please take any dangerous or terminating material out you have the authorities you're in the best position to discover this dangerous or terminating material i don't want any responsibility for it and moreover i don't want any dangerous things especially in the house with children there's an indication here that she had children with both defendants so presumably there were children in the house the gun was found in an unlocked fairly close laundry bag on the floor of either of the adjacent closet an open invasive closet with a living room it's not hard to think of a troubling expectation of privacy however the homeowners the homeowner's privacy to live in a house free from incriminating or dangerous contraband is much more is much stronger than an absent defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy especially in  dangerous items in the home the talk or saw the problem as that war wasn't soft so our two choices aren't either you know no privacy for the whole night guest or the homeowner has to live with items in their home those are the only choices right for now fernandez off to tackle that issue well you could have also had an apparent consent to search if the homeowner the resident here and said yes search that laundry consent but that the search so you didn't have that i think the logical conversation probably was informing his korea defend his arrest and then her saying whoa whoa ok this is there they were in the same room this is their use of their laundry bags right here she didn't say she didn't there's no indication in the record that she didn't have access to these i know there's no indication she had once inside there right up well i mean unless you some appeal and st logical that if you have the resident that has somethin cern's about whatever it might be in this bag that she should be prevented having the police being able to take a consent then because then the place up perhaps believe that she has the authority to allow data i would say that there was that that was the implied message and pointing out that the backs were offenders well let's back  because when we talk about the search it's not a situation where she brings the police into the room and says these are their bags it's a situation they're starting to go through the house and they get to those bags and then she volunteers those are their bags is that more accurate warrant option here very very well could have been done i don't know the probable cause requirement i don't i'm not definitively sure if that was met to establish the warrant however it's that it's unrelated anyway this because of the village idiot the consent here hernandez makes it clear that the political dissent if it's reasonable it's consistent with the fourth amendment irrespective of any availability of a warrant again the fernandez case is so important because it it looks at it from the position of the homeowner in situations like this what would the alternative be here where there was no probable cause  one back stay in the house that is that the rights of the homeowner are trampled in that situation olson another supreme court case does talk about overnight  of course here the host miscarry allowed the police side to defend its possessions in this case obviously being a water bag and that that is a valid consent especially when you when you there of course they're going to have more of an expectation of privacy than an overnight guest at least equal at least equal privacy expectations so even applying cohabit a suspicion by the homeowner to but there might be something some contraband in the house then they should have the right to consent to a search and get it removed by the authorities hernandez fernandes stands for that princ mean if curry said nothing and they just searched the laundry bags she would have been in a better position and the point now that they were defendants laundry bags if you would have said nothing then this would have been a valid search they wouldn't have known they were given this bag of all however she went ahead and volunteered this these are the guys who got arrested this is their stuff they might have something in here i don't want to be in my house that should be about consent to  factual findings the record is somewhat sparse because the officers didn't ask many questions here but we know is that the court found that these pads were close containers that they were in jasmine curry's residence that miss crew told the that i believe the officers testify somewhat inconsistent consistently on that point in looking at the findings of fact we can parse out some of the state's  didn't want contraband well the record doesn't say that there you know that is pure speculation we don't know why she told the police that those were the funds fags other than possible which actress and questions but fernandez permits injury in her home of guess private container to which the owner does not have the right of access the homeowner effectively surrenders a segment of privacy of her home to the privacy of the containers owner such a home owner lacks the power to give effective consent those items or type of fourth amendment protection as you're walking down the sidewalk to the residence they don't lose that protection when she crossed the threshold like that quote from her that i just read you maintain that level privacy and  whatever that article is brought to that residence we don't know how long the backs of been there perhaps the defendants left them there immediately before they were arrested earlier on well what we do know is that there's absolutely no indication the record one she told the officers prior to the search because of whether they asked her if she does want to hear it but they want her bags so the officers were on notice that she didn't have the ability or at least the only evidence that they had was that she didn't  santa and they didn't ask me for the questions and that's kind of what their burden is if there's any question regarding someone's ability to consent they need to ask further questions to determine whether there is that authority there these bags might be a different searched five hundred been there in that case the court said well we've got this ongoing relationship between the parties we have a commonly shared closet where there's a curtain there and there's nothing you know no identif the place to do you know what if it is a piece of furniture or something like one that's not the case the represent here we have some bags they could've taken the bags they knew were the defendants were the defendants were at least custody they could have asked the court said essentially no way there's nowhere near enough evidence here for direct verdict and then the state asked for continuance so that they could question officer starr regarding his recollection of what happened during the search the only thing th of start was able to add to the dialogue was that there was no furniture in the room of the living room of residence and it was that point then that the court said based on my earlier statements of the other insider prior to this moves back doesn't mean they have a right back system that so also really is a non factor in this case as well those containers of occupied a special place and search and seizure law for decades we know that there's no evidence that she said anything else to the police regarding the bags other than those are mine th search from a policy standpoint here the trial court's decision would basically encourage any defendants to not only drop off on   greater than that of the homeowners consent search of these bags so again from a policy standpoint which is i think why fernandez it was decided the way it was this all that the trial court's decision in this case would lead to an absurd result basically as i said as i emphasized earlier placing these defendants these absent defendants expectation of privacy rights and laundry bags about the rights of that homeowner to live in a house that was the case where in the clause it was the mens so the girlfriend gave consent to search the house the police went in this misspoke again the apparent authority of that case