Opinion ID: 2184913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: limitations based on area or space

Text: We note initially, the presiding Justice found as a fact that the consent given extended throughout the house and, specifically, to the area from which the items sought to be suppressed were taken. This finding is abundantly supported by the record. According to the several witnesses who testified as to the circumstances surrounding the consent, the defendant gave a general consent and there was no discussion as to any limitations thereon. One witness testified that the defendant had been assisting the police in their search for the missing .22 caliber pistol and that, immediately prior to her departure, she was asked by Captain Joy: Is it all right if we search the rest of the house for the gun? The witness quoted the defendant as responding: Sure, go ahead, Larry, search for anything you want. I hope you find it. Another witness quoted the defendant as follows: Larry, you can look anywhere in the house that you want to and I hope you can find what you want. Larry is Captain Lawrence Joy, and he testified that: I asked Mrs. Koucoules, I told her that it seemed that he was shot at the time and I would like to know if I could search for any guns within the house and she advised me to go ahead. She would like to get this cleaned up and that's all she said. He further testified that he and the defendant had no discussion as to any limitations on the area to be searched, and that it was general. On direct examination Chief Favreau remembered overhearing a conversation in which Captain Joy asked Mrs. Koucoules, if she had any objections to a search of the upstairs area. According to the witness, she responded: No, go right ahead and look. He also testified as to another conversation between Captain Joy and the defendant which occurred just before the defendant left the house and while she herself was assisting in the search for the gun. In this conversation, after stating that she did not know where it was, the defendant allegedly said: Look wherever you want. I don't know where it is. On cross-examination, Chief Favreau admitted that he was not certain whether the earlier conversation had actually mentioned upstairs or downstairs, but he was sure that the request had been for permission to search the house, although he acknowledged the possibility that the request may have limited the objective of the search to a search for guns. When asked whether he remembered Mrs. Koucoules confining her consent only to the cellar, as opposed to any place, he testified: A. No, it was a general _ _ _ there was no area. Just a general look. Q. Do you remember the exact words spoken? A. It was something like `Larry, look wherever you have to' or something of this type. The exact words, I cannot say the exact words. In her attempt to show that the only consent given was a limited one, the defendant emphasizes certain testimony given by Captain Joy, where he was describing a second consent conversation between himself and Mrs. Koucoules following their mutually unsuccessful efforts to find the missing weapon. His testimony was as follows: A. Well, I had advised Mrs. Koucoules that we still were unable to find a .22 that belonged to her husband. She said `well, didn't you find it in the bureau drawer?' I said, `no, I didn't,['] so she took the drawers all apart with me and we went through the drawers one by one taking them out of the bureau and going through the drawers and nothing turned up. We didn't find the .22 and she advised me just before leaving that Sonny [Mr. Koucoules] had some things in the cellar that he took hunting with him and the .22 usually went hunting with him when he did go. He used to carry this, it might be there. She told me to look for a small black bag. After she left I did go down to the cellar and found the black bag with the .22 ammunition in the bag but still no.22. . . . The following testimony consists of an excerpt from defense counsel's cross-examination of the witness, and an answer in response to a question from the Court: Q [by defense counsel] And the conversation that you had with Mrs. Koucoules in the bedroom, just before she left as it relates to guns was twofold. One _ _ _ `Hey, the gun has to be in the dresser; let's look'? A Yes. Q And two, if it's not in the dresser, it may be in the cellar; why don't you look down there and she told you about the black bag? A Yes. Q That was the extent of the bedroom conversation? A Yes. Q And if anyone else were to say that the bedroom conversation was broader in scope than that, they would be mistaken? A Well, I don't remember it being broader in scope. Q The conversation with you _ _ _ it was with you and not with anyone else. The conversation with you was limited to that? A I would say yes.       Q [by the Court] Captain Joy, did Mrs. Koucoules ever say to you in any of your conversations with her after your first requesting if you could conduct a search of the household, `Go ahead Larry, I hope you find what you want to in order to clear this matter up'? A It seems like it was something to that effect. I can't remember the exact wording. The Justice who heard the testimony declined to construe the conversation as a limitation on the area to be searched. We certainly cannot say as a matter of law that the quoted references to a black bag in the cellar were intended to limit the right to search only to the cellar area. At best, the references to the cellar would seem to show a desire on the defendant's part to assist the officers in their search of the house by specifying the most probable location of the weapon within the house. Furthermore, the emphasis which the defendant places on this particular portion of the evidence overlooks the remaining testimony of the same witness, also quoted above, wherein he stated that the consent was general, without limitations, and to the effect of look wherever you want. The Justice did not err in finding the defendant imposed no spatial limitations on her consent to search.