Court Opinion

ID: 9505302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:03:19.188191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:23.441723
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part.
Juliet Whiteley gave the police permission to conduct a search of a bureau she owned in her home-a bureau she used and shared with Ritchie Halsema. (As she might well have said, "I'll use these drawers, Ritchie, you use that one.") As for whether her permission was good enough for Fourth Amendment purposes, I am reminded of what Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote when a defendant claimed his cousin could not give permission to search the duffel bag they shared, each using separate compartments to store their stuff; "We will not, however, engage in such metaphysical subtleties in judging the efficacy of [the cousin's] consent." Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969). I think Ms. Whiteley's consent was sufficient, largely on the basis that a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court found the cousin's permission adequate.
An individual's consent to a search of his or her residence is effective for searches of the common areas but not always for searches of closed objects inside the home. Consent to search a container is effective only when given by one with "common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected." United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). See also United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 725, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984); Krise v. State, 746 N.E.2d 957, 967 (Ind.2001). Common authority rests "on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes ..." Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171, n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 988.
Juliet Whiteley enjoyed use, access, and control of the dresser in the bedroom, and she thus had actual authority to consent to a search of the dresser. Whiteley was the sole lessee of the residence in which the dresser drawer containing Ritchie's methamphetamine sat. Prior to the search, Ritchie was merely a guest of five to seven days. He stored his belongings in the top dresser drawer in Whiteley's bedroom, which is also where he slept.
Whiteley had the right to eject Ritchie and his belongings, and retain the dresser, at a moment's notice. Whiteley continued to use the dresser and store her belongings in other drawers. Her right to remove Ritchie's belongings from the top drawer did not cease upon granting him use of it. When Ritchie decided to store his methamphetamine in a shared dresser, he assumed the risk that Whiteley would allow someone else to look inside. Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171, n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 988.
Our decision in Krise does not mandate suppressing Ritchie's methamphetamine. The purse in Krise and the dresser in this case are both closed containers normally holding highly personal items. But the type of container searched is relevant in a determination of whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the container, see United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 120 n. 17, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 *679L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), and also whether a third party had apparent authority to consent to a search. See United States v. Basinski, 226 F.3d 829, 834 (7th Cir.2000). The relevant inquiry here is whether the third party giving consent to the search had actual authority to do so.
The purse searched in Krise quite obviously belonged to a female, and the male roommate who consented to the search never had mutual use, joint access to, or control over the purse. We had little trouble concluding the male roommate had no actual authority over a purse he did not use, access, or control. Krise, 746 N.E.2d at 971. Our conclusion in Krise flows from facts about ownership of the container that, if anything, suggest that the trial court got it right in the present case.
I thus join the Court's decision concerning Frank Halsema, but dissent from the decision to vacate Ritchie Halsema's conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
DICKSON, J., joins.