Court Opinion

ID: 9735767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:30:02.348945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:01.349589
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the reasoning and result reached by my colleagues. In my opinion consent for the search was not given by a person having the right or authority to consent to the search and hence the search and seizure made without valid consent was constitutionally impermissible and the evidence seized should have been suppressed. The general rule is that to conform to constitutional requirements, a search must be based on a search warrant unless the search comes within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirements. (Stoner v. California (1964), 376 U.S. 483, 11 L. Ed. 2d 856, 84 S. Ct. 889.) Consent, of course, of a party having the right and authority to permit a search, is one of the recognized exceptions. Ordinarily the consent to a search is that of the person charged with being in possession of the property, but consent may be given by a third person under proper circumstances. United States v. Matlock (1974), 415 U.S. 164, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242, 94 S. Ct. 988. I believe the majority has misinterpreted and misapplied the cases which it relies on to support its result. In my opinion People v. Nunn (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 344, 304 N.E.2d 81, and In re Salyer (1977), 44 Ill. App. 3d 854, 358 N.E.2d 1333, are controlling authorities in support of the proposition the third party purporting to consent to the search involved in this case had no authority to consent to the search. The facts in People v. Nunn are in my opinion legally indistinguishable from those in the instant case. The Nunn decision was reaffirmed in People v. Stacey (1974), 58 Ill. 2d 83, 317 N.E.2d 24, after re-examination in light of the Matlock decision. In Stacey, the court emphasized that part of footnote 7 to the Matlock opinion which stated “ '*** but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.’ ” (58 Ill. 2d 83, 88, 317 N.E.2d 24, 27.) As in the Nunn case, the facts disclose the grandmother did not have “mutual use” or “joint access or control for most purposes.” 58 Ill. 2d 83, 89, 317 N.E.2d 24, 27. In In re Salyer (1977), 44 Ill. App. 3d 854, 358 N.E.2d 1333, the mother’s consent to the search of her minor son’s locked room was approved not because of her actual mutual use or joint and general access but substantially because of her role and statutory duties and responsibilities as mother. Numerous statutes are cited and quoted which according to the court, granted her paramount authority over all premises occupied by her minor children. In relying on the minority of the son and the statutory duties to support the authority of the third party to consent to the search, the conclusion is inescapable that absent the relation of parent and minor child the authority to consent to the search would have been lacking. In this case the defendant was not a minor and the third person granting the consent was not a parent nor standing in the relationship of parent. The majority has cited and discussed People v. Shaffer (1982), 111 Ill. App. 3d 1054, 444 N.E.2d 1096, and has suggested it offers some support for its decision. I find the Shaffer opinion of little assistance in the decision of the case. So far as the opinion is concerned, some of the language of third-party consent searches appear, but how such language affects or is affected by the underlying facts is confusing. The opinion holds that a younger brother of the defendant had the right to invite a police officer into the living room of the defendant’s house, but nowhere does the opinion suggest the younger brother consented to a search of the living room or any other portion of the premises. Additionally, the facts suggest the defendant himself was also present in the living room and he consented to a search of the premises. However the facts in Shaffer are viewed, they are substantially different from those in Nunn, Salyer and in the instant case and accordingly, may not by way of analogy support the propriety of the consent in the instant case. In summary, I believe the cases require the conclusion that the person granting the consent in this case did not have the authority to do so and consequently the motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.