Matejka does not dispute that Forsythe had reasonable suspicion to stop the driver of the van for a traffic violation. Nor does Matejka argue that the expansion of the initial detention when Forsythe asked the driver for consent to a search of the van was unreasonable. Rather, Matejka argues that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated because, although she gave her consent for Forsythe to conduct a pat down search of her person, she did not consent to a search of her belongings. The State contends, however, that denial of the suppression motion was improper because the driver's consent to search the vehicle included all the containers and compartments found in the vehicle, including Matejka's jacket. Consent to Search.
Consent is one of the recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
The proper test for voluntariness of consent under the fourth amendment is whether under the totality of the circumstances it was coerced. There is no evidence to suggest that the driver's consent to search the vehicle was not voluntary. Instead, Matejka contends that the driver could not consent to a search of her jacket located within the vehicle. She argues that the police officer must either obtain her consent to search any of her belongings located within the van, or he must have probable cause that she committed a crime. We have found no binding authority, and counsel does not identify any such authority, that determines whether an officer who has a driver's consent to search a vehicle may search personal items located within the vehicle that clearly belong to a passenger of the vehicle.