Court Opinion

ID: 9499155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:39:06.277664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:18.754025
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s conclusions regarding the lawful search and seizure of Hudspeth’s business computer and its holding regarding Hudspeth’s sentence. I also concur with the majority’s conclusion Mrs. Hudspeth’s consent was voluntary and not coerced. Although I agree with these well-reasoned and articulate portions of the majority’s opinion, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion Mrs. Hudspeth’s consent is invalid under Georgia v. Randolph, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006).
First, the majority misreads Randolph. In Randolph, the Supreme Court “dealt directly with the reasonableness of police entry in reliance on consent by one occupant subject to immediate challenge by *933another” and held an authorized occupant’s consent to a warrantless search is invalid in the specific and limited instance where a “physically present ” co-occupant objects. Id. at 1522, 1519 (emphasis added). In so holding, the Court distinguished Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990), and United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). See Randolph, 126 S.Ct. at 1527-28. In Rodriguez, the Court held consent is sufficient if the person reasonably appears to have common authority over the premises. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 186, 110 S.Ct. 2793. In Matlock, the Court held the consent of a co-occupant with common authority is valid against an absent, non-consenting co-occupant. Matlock, 415 U.S. at 170, 94 S.Ct. 988. The Randolph Court distinguished Matlock solely upon the proximity of the objecting occupant at the time the co-occupant consents to the search. Randolph, 126 S.Ct. at 1527-28. The Court expressly did not overrule Mat-lock, reasoning, “Better to accept the formalism of distinguishing Matlock from this ease than to impose a requirement, time-consuming in the field and in the courtroom, with no apparent systemic justification.” Id. The Court concluded, “This [.Randolph ] case invites a straightforward application of the rule that a physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant” and places no requirement on law enforcement officers to locate “a potentially objecting co-tenant before acting on the permission they had already received” from an authorized co-tenant. Id. (emphasis added).
Randolph does not apply to this case because Hudspeth was in custody and was not physically present at the home when Mrs. Hudspeth gave her consent. If the Supreme Court desired to adopt the broader rule espoused by the majority here, the Court would not have continuously used the phrase “physically present,” and would have ruled police entry without a warrant is unreasonable whenever the suspect refuses consent to search his residence, regardless of where the suspect may be located at the time of his express refusal. This absentee’s refusal of consent, therefore, would trump the consent of all other occupants to the premises.
Second, if, as the majority holds, Randolph applies “regardless of whether the non-consenting co-tenant is physically present at the residence, outside the residence in a car, or, as in our case, off-site,” supra at 930-31, Randolph necessarily overturned Matlock, which it expressly did not. In Matlock, the suspect “was not present with the opportunity to object, [but] he was in a squad car not far away.” Randolph, 126 S.Ct. at 1527. In Rodriguez, the suspect “was actually asleep in the apartment, and the police might have roused him with a knock on the door.” Id. The majority’s interpretation makes the “physically present and objecting” language in Randolph mere surplusage.
Third, in addition to creating irreconcilable distinctions between Matlock and Randolph, the majority’s holding raises public policy concerns by encouraging law enforcement to adopt a “don’t ask” or an “ignorance is bliss” policy. Nothing in Randolph dictates, nor does the majority suggest, the officers were required to tell Mrs. Hudspeth her husband refused consent. Yet, under the majority’s holding, Mrs. Hudspeth’s consent would have been valid but for the officers’ knowledge of Hudspeth’s refusal. Thus, the majority’s holding encourages law enforcement, in seeking consent, to bypass the suspect lest the suspect refuse consent, and instead seek only the consent of an authorized co-*934occupant, thereby avoiding the knowledge bar.
Hudspeth was not physically present and objecting when Mrs. Hudspeth gave her voluntary and non-coerced consent; therefore, Randolph does not apply. Nor does any other decision by the Supreme Court or this circuit apply and make Mrs. Hudspeth’s consent invalid simply because the officers knew Hudspeth earlier had refused consent.
Thus, I dissent.