Opinion ID: 3015764
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Warrantless Search of Lin’s Apartment.

Text: Lin argues that the warrantless search of his living quarters was unconstitutional and that evidence seized from there should therefore have been suppressed. The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches. However, a search pursuant to a valid consent is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment and therefore a warrant is not required. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). Generally, landlords can not consent to the warrantless search of their tenants’ quarters. Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616-617 (1961). However, where a landlord and tenant share common authority and control over a leased premises, the landlord has the authority to consent to a search. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). 1 Inasmuch as we are writing primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need not discuss the factual or procedural background of this appeal. 2 Here, the district court concluded that Lin’s landlord had both actual and apparent authority to consent to the search of Lin’s living area.2 In doing so, the court analyzed Lin’s expectation of privacy in the context of his relationship with the landlord. and the circumstances of the living space. (App. 13).3 We agree that the record supports the district court’s conclusion that Lin and his landlord maintained a “family style” living arrangement, and that Lin had shared access to Lin’s living quarters. App. 14-16. Accordingly the district court did not err in concluding that the landlord had actual authority to consent to the search.4