Opinion ID: 1365818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: third party consent to search

Text: Our final question is whether the toolbox search was reasonable because the father's consent qualified under the third-party-consent exception to warrant requirements. (6) A warrantless search is reasonable when consent is granted by one who has a protectible interest in the property. Valid consent may come from the sole owner of property or from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. ( United States v. Matlock (1974) 415 U.S. 164, 171 [39 L.Ed.2d 242, 250, 94 S.Ct. 988]. [9] California case law prior to Matlock is consistent with that common authority principle. Third-party-consent searches were held invalid in People v. Cruz (1964) 61 Cal.2d 861, 866-867 [40 Cal. Rptr. 841, 395 P.2d 889] (apartment guests could not consent to search of property of others jointly residing there); People v. Murillo (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 173, 176-180 [50 Cal. Rptr. 290] (roommate's consent to search residence was not a valid consent to search attache case); People v. Egan (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 433 [58 Cal. Rptr. 627] (stepfather's consent invalid for search of adult stepson's personal effects though they were located in bedroom of stepfather's home); People v. Daniels (1971) 16 Cal. App.3d 36 [93 Cal. Rptr. 628] (mother could not consent to search of adult son's suitcase in her home). (7a) The trial court here held that the father's authority was based on the combined circumstance of his ownership of the home and his duty to control his son. Yet neither fact shows the requisite link between the father's interest and the property inspected. Common authority over personal property may not be implied from the father's proprietary interest in the premises. ( United States v. Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. 164, 171, fn. 7 [39 L.Ed.2d 242, 250].) Neither may it be premised on the nature of the parent-child relation. [10] (8) Juveniles are entitled to acquire and hold property, real and personal ( Estate of Yano (1922) 188 Cal. 645, 649 [206 P. 995]); and a minor child's property is his own ... not that of his parents. ( Emery v. Emery (1955) 45 Cal.2d 421, 432 [289 P.2d 218]; see also Civ. Code, § 202.) (7b) Parents may have a protectible interest in property belonging to children, but that fact may not be assumed. When a warrantless search is challenged the People must show that it was reasonable. Here the People did not establish that the consenting parent had a sufficient interest under search and seizure law. The father claimed no interest in the box or its contents. He acknowledged that the son was owner, and the son did not consent to the search. Because those facts were known to the police there was no justification either for their relying on the father's consent to conduct the search or for their failure to seek the warrant required by law. The trial court's order is reversed.