Consent can be an effective weapon in an investigator's arsenal.
When asked for permission to search, individuals with plenty to hide often defy common sense and waive their constitutional right to privacy. Evidence confiscated during a consent search is admissible in a subsequent trial, as long as the officer conducting the search follows the fundamental requirements of the consent to search doctrine and is able to prove the same. When the Supreme Court decided Schneckloth v. Bustamonte1 in 1973, and United States v. Matlock2 in 1974, consent as an exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement became a fairly well-settled principal of law. Of the few questions pertaining to consent searches that remained unresolved following Schneckloth and Matlock, most were answered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Illinois v. Rodriguez3 and Florida v. However, one question relating to consent searches that remains unanswered by the Supreme Court is whether law enforcement officers can rely on an individual's consent that is given in the wake of another individual's refusal to consent.