SUMMARY

August 5, 2021

2021COA104

No. 19CA1772, People v. Stone — Constitutional Law — Fourth 

Amendment — Searches and Seizures — Warrantless Search —

Consent Exception

A division of the court of appeals considers for the first time 

whether an occupant’s consent to a law enforcement officer’s entry 

into his or her home extends to the officer’s re-entry into the home 

after the officer has briefly left it. The division concludes that, 

where the initial entry and the re-entry are closely related in time 

and purpose, the initial consent extends to the subsequent re-entry.

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions 

constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by 

the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be 

cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. 

Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion 

should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2021COA104

Court of Appeals No. 19CA1772

Jefferson County District Court No. 18CR3901

Honorable Jeffrey R. Pilkington, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Adrienne Marie Stone,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division II

Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY

Román and Davidson*, JJ., concur

Announced August 5, 2021

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Rebecca A. Adams, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Scott Poland, Alternate Defense Counsel, Lakewood, Colorado, for DefendantAppellant

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. 

VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2020.
1

¶ 1 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 

article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution protect individuals 

against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless one of the 

exceptions to the search warrant requirement applies, law 

enforcement officers are barred from entering a person’s home 

without a warrant. One of those exceptions applies when a person 

with authority over the home freely and voluntarily consents to the 

law enforcement officer’s entry into the home. This case addresses 

the scope of that consent.

¶ 2 We consider in this case a novel issue of Colorado law —

whether an occupant’s consent to a law enforcement officer’s entry 

into the occupant’s home extends to the officer’s re-entry into the 

home after the officer has briefly left it, where the initial entry and 

the re-entry are closely related in time and purpose, and the 

occupant did not revoke or limit the initial consent. We conclude 

that, under these circumstances, the occupant’s initial consent 

extends to the officer’s re-entry into the home.

¶ 3 Adrienne Marie Stone appeals her judgment of conviction 

based on her contention that the court erred by admitting evidence 

obtained during an illegal search of her house. We affirm. 
2

I. Background Facts

A. The Officers’ Entry into Stone and N.M.’s House

¶ 4 Sergeant Betsy Westbrook of the Arvada Police Department 

responded to a report of a disturbance involving a seventeen-yearold, N.M., who said that Stone, his mother, had threatened him 

with a knife. Upon arriving at Stone and N.M.’s house, Westbrook 

spoke with N.M.’s sister, M.M., who was standing in front of the 

house. M.M. told Westbrook that, three days earlier, Stone had 

threatened N.M. with a knife. M.M. said that she was worried for 

N.M.’s safety because Stone was headed to the house, was very 

angry with N.M., and had told him to “pray for his life.” 

¶ 5 While speaking with M.M., Westbrook noticed that a young 

man holding a baby briefly opened the front door of the house and 

then closed it. Suspecting that the young man was N.M., 

Westbrook knocked on the door. N.M. opened the door, agreed to 

speak with Westbrook, and identified himself. Westbrook asked 

N.M. whether she could speak with him inside the house. N.M. 

responded affirmatively and expressly invited her inside. 

¶ 6 Upon entering the house, Westbrook observed a stairway filled 

with boxes, clothing, and other items that “block[ed] free 
3

movement.” In addition, she saw that the kitchen and living room 

were cluttered and that a young child was “crawling over” a baby 

gate set up between the living room and kitchen. Westbrook said 

that the child “could just climb up on different things and get over 

[the baby gate] easily.” 

¶ 7 N.M. led Westbrook into the kitchen, where he showed her a 

knife that he said Stone had used to threaten him. Westbrook took 

two photographs of the knife with her cell phone. She then left the 

house to retrieve her department-issued camera from her car so she 

could take better pictures of the interior of the house than she 

could with the cell phone. 

¶ 8 As she stepped outside the house, Westbrook saw that Stone 

had arrived. Stone was upset that a police officer and M.M. were at 

the house. Stone also appeared to be yelling at a neighbor. 

Because the situation involving Stone was “rapidly unfolding,” 

Westbrook re-entered the house without her camera. 

¶ 9 Blaine Engdahl, a resource officer at N.M.’s school, also 

arrived at the house. After speaking briefly with M.M., Engdahl saw 

N.M. at the front door. He entered the house with N.M. and, like 

Westbrook, observed the clutter inside the house. Engdahl noted 
4

that “[t]he movement through the house was by pathways through 

the clutter,” which extended “up the stairs to the second floor.” 

¶ 10 After Westbrook and Engdahl spoke with N.M. and saw the 

interior of the house, they returned outside, where Westbrook 

“made the decision to contact Jefferson County protection services” 

about the children. A caseworker from protection services, Misty 

Bogle, arrived and entered the house. Upon evaluating the 

condition of the house, Bogle concluded it was unfit for children 

and that the children needed to be removed from it. 

¶ 11 While Bogle, Westbrook, and N.M. gathered the children’s 

belongings, a code enforcement officer, Nicole Miller, and another 

police officer, Devoney Cooke, entered the house. Cooke 

photographed the interior of the house while she, Westbrook, and 

Miller walked through it together. Over the next couple of hours, 

other law enforcement officers also entered the house. 

¶ 12 Stone was arrested and charged with one count of felony 

menacing, seven counts of child abuse, and one count of violation 

of a protection order that the neighbor had obtained against her. 

One of the counts of child abuse was later dismissed because N.M. 

was not under the age of sixteen at the time of the alleged abuse. 
5

B. The Suppression Hearing and the Trial

¶ 13 Stone filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence of the knife 

and the condition of the house, arguing that the “[l]aw enforcement 

[officers] conducted a warrantless search of [her] residence without 

probable cause and her consent,” and that “all evidence obtain[ed] 

[from the search] should be suppressed.” 

¶ 14 The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion, at which 

Westbrook and Cooke testified. At the hearing, Westbrook 

described her interactions with N.M., the condition of the house, 

and the photographs she took of the knife. Westbrook did not 

testify that she took any photographs in the house other than those 

of the knife. In addition, Cooke testified about her observations 

when she walked through the house. Cooke said that, at 

Westbrook’s direction, she photographed the interior of the house. 

¶ 15 Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order finding 

that Westbrook’s and Engdahl’s initial entries into the house were 

lawful because N.M. voluntarily gave them consent to enter. It 

concluded, however, that Bogle’s, Cooke’s, and Miller’s entries (as 

well as these of any other officials) violated Stone’s Fourth 

Amendment rights. Thus, it excluded “all evidence secured through 
6

such actions . . . includ[ing] all photographs taken during these 

entries.”

¶ 16 At trial, Westbrook and Engdahl testified about their 

interactions with N.M. and the condition of the house. The jury 

found Stone guilty on all counts. 

II. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

¶ 17 “Review of a trial court’s suppression order presents ‘a mixed 

question of law and fact.’” People v. Peluso, 2021 CO 16, ¶ 10, ___

P.3d ___, ___ (quoting People v. Allen, 2019 CO 88, ¶ 13, 450 P.3d

724, 728). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo and 

defer to the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by 

competent evidence in the record. Id. 

¶ 18 If we conclude that the trial court erred, we next determine 

whether the error is of constitutional dimension. The admission of 

evidence in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights is a 

constitutional error. See People v. Summitt, 132 P.3d 320, 323 

(Colo. 2006). We must reverse if the trial court made a 

constitutional error unless “the evidence properly received against a 

defendant is so overwhelming that the constitutional violation was 
7

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bartley v. People, 817 P.2d 

1029, 1034 (Colo. 1991). 

B. Westbrook’s Entry and Re-Entry into the House

¶ 19 Stone first contends that the trial court erred by admitting 

Westbrook’s testimony about the clutter in the house and the

photographs she took during her initial entry and re-entry into the 

house. Before we address this argument on the merits, however, we 

turn to the parties’ disagreement regarding the specific photographs 

that the court held were inadmissible in its ruling on Stone’s 

suppression motion. 

1. The Photographs of the House

¶ 20 Stone argues that, at trial, the court erred by allowing the 

prosecutor to admit into evidence photographs that the court had 

ruled in its suppression order were inadmissible. 

a. The Pre-Trial Colloquy 

¶ 21 On the first day of trial, the prosecutor asked the court to 

clarify its earlier ruling regarding the admissibility of photographs 

taken during the search. Although Westbrook did not say at the 

suppression hearing that she had taken any photographs inside the 

house other than the photographs of the knife, the prosecutor told 
8

the court on the morning of trial that, during her initial entry and 

re-entry, Westbrook had also used her cell phone to take 

photographs of the interior of the house. The prosecutor said that 

any photographs Westbrook took of the interior of the house were 

similar to the photographs that Cooke took inside the house. 

¶ 22 Based on the prosecutor’s representation that Westbrook had 

taken photographs depicting the interior of the house, defense 

counsel did not object to the admission of the photographs. But the 

court nonetheless noted that Westbrook had not testified that she 

photographed the interior of the house. The court said to the 

prosecutor, “I heard [Westbrook] just as you heard her on the 

stand. I didn’t get my camera. I took a photograph of the knife.” 

The court said, “Maybe it was [Westbrook] just didn’t explain it.” 

The prosecutor responded, “I think I did not explain that correctly.” 

¶ 23 At trial, the court admitted photographs of the inside of the 

house, as well as photographs of the knife. 

b. The Trial Court Erred by Admitting the Photographs of the 

Interior of the House

¶ 24 The transcript of the suppression hearing supports the court’s 

original understanding that, while in the house, Westbrook 
9

photographed the knife but not the interior of the house. At the 

hearing, Westbrook acknowledged that “the only photograph [I] took 

on the first entry was the knife.” She did not mention taking any 

additional photographs after re-entering the house. Rather, at the 

suppression hearing, Cooke was the only witness who said she had 

taken photographs depicting the interior of the house — and the 

court later ruled that Cooke had entered the house unlawfully.

¶ 25 The prosecutor’s “clarification” on the first day of trial that 

Westbrook, in fact, photographed the interior of the house was not 

evidence, and thus the trial court erred by treating it as such. See 

Quest Servs. Corp. v. Blood, 252 P.3d 1071, 1088 n.10 (Colo. 2011). 

This is especially true because the prosecutor’s “clarification” 

contradicted Westbrook’s testimony at the suppression hearing that 

the only photographs she took during her first entry into the house 

depicted the knife. 

¶ 26 Further, the prosecutor contended that the photographs of the 

interior of the house were “similar” to photographs that Westbrook 

allegedly took — even though, at the suppression hearing, 

Westbrook never said she photographed the interior of the house. 

Moreover, the prosecutor did not establish at trial who took the
10

photographs of the interior of the house or, more generally, that 

Westbrook’s alleged photographs of the interior of the house 

actually existed. Thus, based on the evidence presented at the 

hearing, we understand that Cooke took the photographs of the 

interior of the house that were admitted into evidence 

¶ 27 We hold that the trial court erred by admitting the 

photographs of the interior of the house because the prosecutor did 

not introduce evidence establishing that Westbrook took any such 

photographs; Westbrook testified at the suppression hearing that, 

while in the house, she only photographed the knife; Cooke, 

however, said that she took photographs inside the house; and the 

trial court ruled that Cooke entered the house illegally. 

c. Even Though the Trial Court Erred by Admitting the 

Photographs of the Interior of the House, the Error Was 

Harmless Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

¶ 28 Because we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting 

photographs obtained in violation of Stone’s Fourth Amendment 

rights, we must determine whether the admission of the 

photographs was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Bartley, 

817 P.2d at 1034. 
11

¶ 29 When determining whether a constitutional error is harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt, we should consider “(1) the importance 

of the [erroneously admitted] evidence to the [prosecution’s] case; 

(2) whether the evidence is cumulative; and (3) the overall strength 

of the [prosecution’s] case.” People v. Omwanda, 2014 COA 128, ¶ 

32, 338 P.3d 1145, 1150. The “inquiry is whether the jury’s guilty 

verdict in this ‘trial was surely unattributable to the error.’” Id.

(quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993)). 

¶ 30 Here, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt 

because the improperly admitted photographs of the interior of the 

house were cumulative of Westbrook’s testimony regarding her 

observations inside the house, which, as discussed below, infra Part 

II.B.2, was admissible. 

¶ 31 At trial, Westbrook testified that the photographs depicting the 

interior of the house were consistent with her own observations. 

She testified that the house “was very cluttered[,] . . . dirty[,] . . . 

[and] unsafe.” She noted that the house was unsafe because she 

observed piles of things that could fall on a child; a very young child 

almost falling over a baby gate and tripping over items scattered on 
12

the floor; and “old dishes and food and . . . everything around [that] 

just was . . . a hazard to a small child.” 

¶ 32 The photographs of the interior of the house that the court 

admitted into evidence were cumulative because they did not add 

anything material to Westbrook’s description of the cluttered and 

hazardous conditions she saw in the house. See People v. Espinoza, 

989 P.2d 178, 182 (Colo. App. 1999). Because the photographs 

were cumulative of Westbrook’s testimony, the trial court’s error in 

admitting them could not have contributed to the jury’s verdict and 

was therefore constitutional harmless error. See Griego v. People,

19 P.3d 1, 8 (Colo. 2001); Omwanda, ¶ 32, 338 P.3d at 1150. 

2. The Photographs of the Knife and Westbrook’s Trial Testimony 

¶ 33 We next turn to Stone’s argument that the trial court erred by 

admitting the photographs Westbrook took of the knife and her trial 

testimony regarding her observations of the interior of the house. 

Stone contends that the court should have excluded this evidence 

because Westbrook violated Stone’s Fourth Amendment rights when 

she entered the house without Stone’s consent.

¶ 34 The trial court concluded that N.M. “knowingly, voluntarily[,] 

and intelligently consented” to Westbrook’s entry, and that N.M.’s 
13

consent encompassed both Westbrook’s initial entry and her reentry after stepping outside the house to retrieve the camera from 

her car. Stone contends that this conclusion was in error because 

(1) N.M., as a minor at the time, lacked the authority to consent to a 

law enforcement officer’s entry into the house; and (2) even if N.M. 

had the authority to consent to Westbrook’s initial entry, his 

consent did not extend to Westbrook’s re-entry into the house. We 

are not persuaded.

a. The Consent Exception to the Warrant Requirement

i. Valid Consent

¶ 35 A warrantless entry into a person’s home is presumptively 

unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the 

Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. People v. Stock, 2017 

CO 80, ¶ 15, 397 P.3d 386, 390. The prosecution carries “the 

burden of establishing that [a] warrantless search is . . . justified 

under one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant 

requirement.” People v. Fuerst, 2013 CO 28, ¶ 11, 302 P.3d 253,

256 (quoting People v. Winpigler, 8 P.3d 439, 443 (Colo. 1999)). 

¶ 36 One exception to the warrant requirement is “[a] search 

conducted pursuant to consent freely and voluntarily given by a 
14

person with ‘common authority’ over the [searched] premises.” 

People v. Strimple, 2012 CO 1, ¶ 20, 267 P.3d 1219, 1223. Consent 

is voluntary if it is “the product of an essentially free and 

unconstrained choice by its maker.” People v. Berdahl, 2019 CO 

29, ¶ 20, 440 P.3d 437, 442 (quoting People v. Munoz-Gutierrez, 

2015 CO 9, ¶ 16, 342 P.3d 439, 444). “Conversely, a consensual 

search is involuntary when police overbear the consenting party’s 

will and critically impair the party’s ‘capacity for 

self-determination.’” Munoz-Gutierrez, ¶ 17, 342 P.3d at 444 

(quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973)). 

¶ 37 When determining whether a person voluntarily consented to a 

law enforcement officer’s entry into a residence, “courts must apply 

an objective test that takes into account the totality of the 

circumstances and determines whether the defendant could 

reasonably have construed the police conduct to be coercive.” 

Berdahl, ¶ 23, 440 P.3d at 442. A consenting person’s youth is a 

factor in determining the voluntariness of the person’s consent. 

United States v. Gutierrez-Hermosillo, 142 F.3d 1225, 1231 (10th 

Cir. 1998). However, the fact that the person giving consent is a 

minor does not necessarily preclude effective consent and is only 
15

one factor within the totality of the circumstances a court must 

consider when determining whether the consent was voluntary. 

Blincoe v. People, 178 Colo. 34, 37, 494 P.2d 1285, 1286 (1972); see 

United States v. Sanchez, 608 F.3d 685, 690 (10th Cir. 2010). 

Other relevant factors include the consenting person’s education, 

intelligence, and state of mind, and whether the person was aware 

that he or she was free to withhold consent. Berdahl, ¶ 23, 440 

P.3d at 442.

ii. Consent by a Co-Occupant

¶ 38 In certain circumstances, a co-occupant can validly consent to 

a search of the residence even though the law enforcement officers 

are investigating a different co-occupant. Co-occupants “have 

common authority [to consent to a search] where there is ‘mutual 

use of the property by persons generally having joint access [to] or 

control [of the residence] for most purposes.’” Peluso, ¶ 13, ___ P.3d

at ___ (quoting United States. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 n.7

(1974)). If one co-occupant is not present during the search, “the

consent of one who possesses common authority over [the] premises

. . . is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom
16

that authority is shared.” Fuerst, ¶ 12, 302 P.3d at 256 (quoting

Matlock, 415 U.S. at 170). 

¶ 39 Even where the co-occupant lacks actual authority to consent

to a search, he or she may still possess apparent authority to

validate the search. Under the apparent authority doctrine, “[a]

warrantless search is . . . valid based upon the consent of a third

party whom officers, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to

possess common authority over the premises, even if the person in

fact does not [possess such authority].” Peluso, ¶ 14, ___ P.3d at

___. The apparent authority doctrine applies only when the

consenting party lacked actual authority. Petersen v. People, 939

P.2d 824, 830-31 (Colo. 1997). 

¶ 40 When officers seek consent to search a jointly occupied

residence, “a physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of 

consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of the 

consent of a fellow occupant.” Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 

122-23 (2006). In order to vitiate a co-occupant’s consent, “(1) the 

objecting occupant must have been physically present on the 

premises as officers ‘propose[d] to make a consent search’; and (2) 

the objecting occupant must have objected as officers ‘propose[d] to 
17

make a consent search.’” Williams v. People, 2019 CO 108, ¶ 35, 

455 P.3d 347, 354 (quoting Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292, 

306 (2014)). “[I]f the objecting resident does not take part in the 

threshold colloquy between the officers and his co-occupant, he 

‘loses out,’” and the co-occupant’s consent will validate the search. 

Id. at ¶ 1, 455 P.3d at 348 (quoting Randolph, 547 U.S. at 121).

b. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Finding that N.M. Validly 

Consented to Westbrook’s Entry into the House

¶ 41 Stone contends that N.M. “had no legal authority over the 

residence to give constitutionally valid third-party consent” because 

he was a minor at the time and Westbrook did not “reasonably 

inquire” regarding his authority. Stone also contends that, after 

being told that Stone was on her way to the house, Westbrook had 

a duty to wait for Stone to arrive and to ask her for permission to 

enter the house. Finally, Stone argues that Westbrook exceeded 

any consent N.M. gave her when she re-entered the house. We 

consider and reject each of these contentions.

i. N.M. Voluntarily Consented to Westbrook’s Entry 

¶ 42 As noted, “the fact that one is a minor does not necessarily 

preclude effective consent . . . .” Blincoe, 178 Colo. at 37, 494 P.2d 
18

at 1286. Rather, age is one factor within the totality of the 

circumstances that a court can consider when determining whether 

a person voluntarily consented to a search. Sanchez, 608 F.3d at 

690; Gutierrez-Hermosillo, 142 F.3d at 1231. At seventeen, N.M. 

was nearly a legal adult. Stone does not argue that he was 

impaired intellectually or in such a state of mind that he could not 

understand what Westbrook was asking. Moreover, Stone does not 

contend that Westbrook coerced N.M. into letting her into the 

house. N.M. knew Westbrook was a police officer because she 

identified herself as such and wore a uniform. See Sanchez, 608 

F.3d at 690. For these reasons, we conclude that N.M. voluntarily 

gave Westbrook consent to enter the house. 

ii. N.M. Had Actual Authority to Consent to Westbrook’s Entry

¶ 43 We agree with the trial court that N.M. had actual authority to 

consent to Westbrook’s entry. The record shows, and Stone does 

not deny, that N.M. resided in the house and had “joint access [to] 

or control [of it] for most purposes.” Peluso, ¶ 13, ___ P.3d at ___ 

(quoting Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 n.7). Very simply, the house was 

N.M.’s home. Thus, N.M., as a co-occupant, had actual authority to 

consent to Westbrook’s entry into the house. See id. (“Where a 
19

residence is jointly occupied by more than one person, the consent 

of one occupant with common authority over the premises is 

sufficient to permit a warrantless search.”). 

¶ 44 Because N.M. had actual authority to consent to Westbrook’s

entry into the house, Stone’s reliance on Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497

U.S. 177 (1990), in support of her contention that Westbrook had a

duty to reasonably inquire regarding N.M.’s authority, is misplaced. 

Rodriguez addressed an individual’s apparent authority to consent

to a law enforcement officer’s entry into a residence. Because

actual authority and apparent authority are mutually exclusive,

and N.M. had actual authority to consent to Westbrook’s entry for

the reasons explained above, the apparent authority doctrine does

not apply here. See Petersen, 939 P.2d at 831. 

¶ 45 Westbrook also was not required to wait for Stone to arrive

and to ask her for consent to enter the house. Where a potentially

objecting co-occupant is “nearby but not invited to take part in the

threshold colloquy” regarding consent to search the premises, the

potentially objecting co-occupant “loses out” and the present cooccupant’s consent to the search controls. Williams, ¶¶ 24, 35, 455 

P.3d at 352, 354 (quoting Randolph, 547 U.S. at 121). Although at
20

the time of Westbrook’s initial entry into the house, Westbrook

knew that Stone would soon be arriving at the house, Stone was not

present and therefore could not object to the entry. Stone cites to

no authority suggesting that police officers are required to obtain

the consent of an absent co-occupant where another co-occupant

with actual authority has already given valid consent to entry. 

iii. N.M.’s Initial Consent Extended to Westbrook’s Re-Entry

¶ 46 We next address Stone’s contention that Westbrook’s re-entry 

into the house exceeded the scope of N.M.’s consent to her initial 

entry. Stone suggests that Westbrook, “after observing the 

condition [of the house] on the first entry, [was required] to secure a 

search warrant” before she could legally re-enter the house. We 

disagree. 

¶ 47 Absent an objection to “subsequent, closely related entries and

searches, after valid consent to an initial entry,” the consenting

person’s “initial consent [can] extend[] to the subsequent entries.” 

Phillips v. State, 625 P.2d 816, 818 (Alaska 1980). “[W]hile one

consensual entry does not entitle a law enforcement official to

return at any substantially later time, an officer’s momentary

exit . . . does not invalidate” an otherwise legal search or seizure. 
21

Commonwealth v. Moye, 586 A.2d 406, 409 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990). 

Thus, for consent to encompass a subsequent re-entry, the entry

and re-entry must be closely related in time and purpose. See

People v. Franklin, 2016 IL App (1st) 140059, ¶ 17, 62 N.E.3d 1145,

1150 (The court observed that the officer “never abandoned his

investigation, relinquished control over the defendant’s house, or

indicated an intent not to seize [the contraband]. He only briefly

interrupted his search to call for backup” and to speak to the

prosecutor. (quoting People v. Logsdon, 567 N.E.2d 746, 748 (Ill.

App. Ct. 1991))); cf. United States v. McMullin, 576 F.3d 810, 816

(8th Cir. 2009) (holding that consent to an initial entry does not

extend to a subsequent entry if the purpose of the initial entry has

been accomplished).

¶ 48 Westbrook had not completed her investigation when she

momentarily stepped out of the house to retrieve her camera. As

noted above, she wanted the camera so she could take more

accurate photographs than she could with her cell phone. 

Westbrook’s time out of the house was so brief that she did not

reach her car before she decided to re-enter. Importantly, there is
22

no evidence that N.M. revoked his consent or otherwise objected to

Westbrook’s re-entry into the house. 

¶ 49 Based on this record, we conclude that N.M.’s consent to 

Westbrook’s initial entry extended to her re-entry into the house. 

See Phillips, 625 P.2d at 818; Franklin, ¶ 17, 62 N.E.3d at 1150;

Moye, 586 A.2d at 409. Because N.M. did not revoke his consent or

object to Westbrook’s re-entry, Westbrook was not required to ask

N.M. for consent to re-enter the house. See Phillips, 625 P.2d at

818. 

¶ 50 For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err

by finding that Westbrook’s re-entry was lawful because it fell

within the scope of the consent N.M. gave her when she first

knocked on the door. 

C. Stone’s Challenge to Engdahl’s and Bogle’s Testimony at Trial

¶ 51 Stone also appears to challenge the admissibility of Engdahl’s 

trial testimony based on her contention that he entered the house 

illegally. But she does not provide any citations to the record or 

legal authority in support of her argument regarding Engdahl’s 

testimony. 
23

¶ 52 For these reasons, Stone’s argument is undeveloped, and we 

do not address it on the merits. See People v. Liggett, 2021 COA 51, 

¶ 53, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (acknowledging that appellate courts do not

address undeveloped arguments).

¶ 53 But even if the argument were developed, because Engdahl’s

trial testimony regarding the interior conditions of the house was

cumulative of Westbrook’s testimony, Engdahl’s testimony could

not have contributed to the jury’s verdict. Thus, any error in the

admission of Engdahl’s testimony would have been harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Griego, 19 P.3d at 8; Omwanda, 

¶ 32, 338 P.3d at 1150. 

¶ 54 Finally, Stone also appears to challenge the legality of Bogle’s

entry into the house. But the trial court excluded Bogle’s testimony

regarding her observations of the interior of the house. Stone does

not point to any evidence admitted at trial regarding Bogle’s

observations of the condition of the house. Therefore, this issue is

moot.

III. Conclusion

¶ 55 The judgment of conviction is affirmed. 

JUDGE ROMÁN and JUDGE DAVIDSON concur.