Opinion ID: 1379441
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Forrester's Consent[9]

Text: Although our state constitution did not require Officer Rhodes to inform Forrester of her right to refuse giving consent to search her purse, Officer Rhodes exceeded the scope of Forrester's consent when he proceeded beyond the visual inspection of the purse granted by Forrester to an intense physical examination of the purse. As a result, the crack cocaine should have been excluded at trial. Under our state constitution, suspects are free to limit the scope of the searches to which they consent. When relying on the consent of a suspect, a police officer's search must not exceed the scope of the consent granted or the search becomes unreasonable. In a situation where a citizen's response to an officer's request to look into a container, such as her purse, is merely offering the officer a restricted view of the inside of the container while retaining possession, a reasonable police officer would not assume that this guarded action also granted permission to take possession of, search thoroughly, and even partially destroy the container itself. Cf., State v. Garcia, 127 N.M. 695, 986 P.2d 491, 494 (1999)(Although an individual consenting to a vehicle search should expect that search to be thorough, he need not anticipate that the search will involve the destruction of his vehicle, its parts or contents.). The current situation could be very different had Forrester surrendered possession of her purse to Officer Rhodes without placing any restriction on the scope of the search. However, even in a situation where they have received a general and unqualified consent, the police do not have carte blanche to do whatever they please. 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.1(c), at 612 (3d ed.1996). Forrester's response to the request to search her purse was not to surrender possession of the purse for an unrestricted search, but instead she provided a limited view of the purse's interior, obviously with the hope that Officer Rhodes' suspicions would be satisfied and she would escape detection. The difference between her reaction and the handing over possession of the purse or granting verbal permission to search her purse is obvious. If this Court held that Forrester's consent, clearly limited by her actions, opened her purse up to the intrusive inspection executed by Officer Rhodes, we would eviscerate the distinction between limited and unlimited consent in police searches. Such a result would ignore a citizen's right under our constitution to limit the scope of their consent in government searches.