Court Opinion

ID: 9686327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:42:40.286178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:17.840616
License: Public Domain

JON P. WILCOX, J.
¶ 46. (dissenting). Today's decision requires this court to strike a delicate balance between two opposing interests that are inherent to constitutional considerations arising under the Fourth Amendment. On the one hand, we must attempt to avoid rules and procedures that "leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of [police] officers' whim or caprice." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949). On the other, we must also be concerned with rules and technicalities which "unduly hamper law enforcement," id., by superseding the practical, day-to-day judgment of police officers in the field.
¶47. Not surprisingly, the accepted method of striking this balance turns on principles of "reasonableness." See, e.g., Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990). The majority decision, though built upon this standard of "reasonableness," overlooks the fact that warrantless searches based upon the apparent common authority of a third party inherently require police officers to make on-the-scene, commonsense determinations as to the validity of that third party's common authority. As a result, the majority applies the rules governing apparent common authority in an unnecessarily rigid and impractical fashion. Accordingly, I dissent.1
*556¶ 48. The United States Supreme Court has held that police may rely upon a third party's apparent common authority to consent to a search of the defendant's residence, even if that third party lacks actual common authority to do so, provided that the reliance is "reasonable." See Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 186-87. The reasonableness of an officer's reliance in any given situation is determined by use of an objective standard. See id. at 188-189.
¶ 49. Therefore, our duty in this case is to determine whether "the facts available to the officer at the moment [of the search] warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises." Id. at 188 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1968)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "If not, then warrantless entry without further inquiry is unlawful unless authority actually exists. But if so, the search is valid." Id. at 188-89.
¶ 50. This standard of reasonableness is no different from that which is ordinarily demanded of police officers in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See id. at 185-86. To fully explain this principle, it is worth quoting the Rodriguez court at length:
It is apparent that in order to satisfy the "reasonableness" requirement of the Fourth Amendment, what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by agents of the government — whether the magistrate issuing a warrant, the police officer executing a warrant, or the police officer conducting a search or seizure under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement — is not that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable. As we put it in *557Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949):
"Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability."
We see no reason to depart from this general rule with respect to facts bearing upon the authority to consent to a search. Whether the basis for such authority exists is the sort of recurring factual question to which law enforcement officials must be expected to apply their judgment; and all the Fourth Amendment requires is that they answer it reasonably.
Id. at 185-86.
¶ 51. As the United States Supreme Court has recently emphasized, it is not possible to articulate precisely what the Fourth Amendment demands in terms of reasonableness. See Ornelas v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1661 (1996). At the very least, however, it is clear that the reasonableness requirement is a "commonsense, nontechnical conception[ ] that deal[s] with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
¶ 52. Applying these standards of reasonableness to the case at bar, I conclude that Officer Priebe, Sergeant Bushey and Deputy Otterbacher (the "officers") reasonably relied upon Mr. Garlock's apparent common authority over the garage loft in order to conduct a warrantless search of the premises. In order to appropriately assess the reasonableness of the *558officers' actions in this case, I examine the extent of their knowledge at the time of the warrantless search.
¶ 53. Before the officers entered the loft above Mr. Garlock's garage, they knew the following:
1. Mr. Garlock was the owner of the premises in question, including the house, garage and loft above the garage.
2. Mr. Garlock's daughter and her husband, Mr. Kieffer ("the Kieffers"), slept in Mr. Garlock's loft above the garage. Mr. Zattera was staying with the Kieffers at the time.
3. Mr. Garlock's garage and loft were located 15-20 feet behind his house.
4. There were no plumbing services connected to Mr. Garlock's loft. The Kieffers had to come into Mr. Garlock's home to use the shower and bathroom.
5. There was no telephone service to Mr. Gar-lock's loft.
6. There was no lease or agreement to pay rent between the Kieffers and Mr. Garlock.
7. There was electricity running to Mr. Garlock's loft. The Kieffers sometimes helped pay the electric bills for the loft.
8. There was no separate entrance to the loft from the outside of the garage. One had to enter the loft by first entering Mr. Garlock's garage through a door which was not locked at the time of the search.
9. Mr. Garlock usually knocked before entering the loft "out of respect."
10. The door to the loft was also unlocked at the time of the search.
¶ 54. With this knowledge, I conclude that the officers reasonably believed that Mr. Garlock had common authority over, or sufficient relationship to, the garage loft in order to authorize a warrantless search of *559the premises. That is, the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances in believing that Mr. Garlock had "mutual use of the property" through "joint access or control for most purposes."2 United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 n.7 (1974). Accordingly, I conclude that the Kieffers assumed the risk that Mr. Garlock might permit the garage loft to be searched. See id.
¶ 55. Viewed together, the first five facts listed above, together with all logical inferences therefrom, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the garage loft was not a separate, self-sustained living space. Mr. Garlock's garage was situated in close proximity to his actual home, and the Kieffers slept in the loft — they had no plumbing or running water to speak of. With this knowledge, it would be reasonable for the officers to conclude that the Kieffers would have to enter Mr. Garlock's house every time they had to wash their hands, use the toilet, take a shower, brush their teeth, or even get a drink of tap water.
¶ 56. These observations would in turn make it reasonable for the officers to conclude that the garage loft was more akin to a bedroom of the Garlock house, rather than a separate "home" for the Kieffers.3 As the *560majority recognizes, courts have afforded a legal presumption to the validity of a parent's common authority over their children's bedrooms, whether or not that child is married. See, e.g., People v. Daniels, 93 Cal. Rptr. 628, 631-32 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971); People v. Brooks, 660 N.E.2d 270, 275 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996); State v. Packard, 389 So. 2d 56, 58 (La. 1980); State v. Kinderman, 136 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Minn. 1965); State v. Summers, 764 P.2d 250, 253—54 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).4
*561¶ 57. This information provides a background against which to assess the remaining five facts known to the officers at the time of the search. Analyzed together, the latter five facts listed above would alert the officers to the following: Mr. Garlock was not the Kieffers' landlord, nor could the Kieffers appropriately be labeled as "tenants." The Kieffers did not pay rent, and there was no written or oral lease — only an undefined "agreement" that the Kieffers would help to pay the utility bills from time to time. Under any reasonable interpretation of the Garlock/Kieffer living agreement, this was not an arm's-length rental arrangement.
¶ 58. Moreover, Mr. Garlock manifested his apparent common authority by leading police through his house, out the back door to the garage, through the unlocked garage door (the sole access to the loft), up the loft stairs and through the unlocked loft door at 8:45 a.m. because he was "very upset" that "drugs were on [his] property."
¶ 59. Together, these facts would lead the officers to reasonably believe that Mr. Garlock could enter the *562garage loft at will, even if that belief was ultimately a mistaken one. Although Mr. Garlock told the officers that he usually knocked "out of respect," this fact could lead an officer to reasonably conclude that Mr. Garlock was not obligated to knock, but did so merely to respect the privacy of his daughter and son-in-law.
¶ 60. Looking at all of the facts known to the police at the time of the search, then, I conclude that it was reasonable for the officers to believe that Mr. Gar-lock had common authority over his garage loft. In this case, the officers did not simply "accept at face value the consenting party's apparent assumption that he has authority to allow the contemplated search." See majority op. at 549 (quoting Brooks, 660 N.E.2d at 276). To the contrary, the officers made a commonsense determination, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusion, that Mr. Garlock had common authority over his garage loft.
¶ 61. Unfortunately for the police officers of this state, the majority concludes that at least 6 more questions should have been asked by the officers when they arrived at the Garlock home:
1. Whether the Kieffers had the right to exclude others from entry into the loft area.
2. Whether it was Garlock's normal practice to enter and exit the loft area whenever he felt like it.
3. Whether Garlock considered himself the Kief-fers' "landlord."
4. Whether the loft door had a lock on it.
5. Whether Garlock had a key to the loft door.
6. Whether Garlock made personal use of the loft area himself.
See majority op. at 551.
¶ 62. Not only does the majority emphasize that the police officers failed to ask this litany of questions, *563but it goes to great lengths to illustrate that these specific legal questions must be asked directly. See majority op. at 552,554 ("The record demonstrates that answers to those questions were available to the officers at the time of the search, if they had only asked."); ("Because the officers only asked questions regarding whether there was a written lease and whether the Kieffers paid rent, we conclude that they lacked a reasonable basis to believe that Garlock possessed apparent authority to consent to a search of his son-in-law's living area.").
¶ 63. Such a rigid approach which requires police officers to ask all of the "right" questions inappropriately reduces the discretion and judgment of police officers in the field. Without such discretion, and the ability to draw all logical inferences from what they observe at the scene, officers will be compelled to act more as "legal technicians" than police officers. Ornelas, 116 S.Ct. at 1661. Nevertheless, the majority frowns upon the use of "negative" evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion as to a third party's common authority over the premises to be searched. See majority op. at 552-53. I conclude that "negative" evidence, though not dispositive on its own, can often be helpful when coupled with "positive" evidence to support an officer's conclusions.
¶ 64. In this case, the officers received all of the information discussed above, and did not receive any information that would contradict their beliefs, such as an indication that Mr. Garlock could not enter the loft area whenever he felt like it, or that the Kieffers could rightfully exclude Mr. Garlock from entry. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that, ultimately, Mr. Garlock could enter the loft if he desired to. I respectfully dissent.
*564¶ 65. I am authorized to state that Justice Donald W. Steinmetz and Justice N. Patrick Crooks join this dissent.

 For purposes of this dissent, I agree with the majority that Mr. Garlock did not have actual common authority over the garage loft in this case. Therefore, this dissent addresses only the police officers' reliance upon Mr. Garlock's apparent common authority to consent to the garage loft search.
*569Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank a customer who does not within one year from the time the statement and items are made available to the customer (sub. (1)) discover and report the customer's unauthorized signature or any alteration on the face or back of the item or does not within 3 years from that time discover and report any unauthorized indorsement is precluded from asserting against the bank such unauthorized signature or indorsement or such alteration.
This provision is now found at § 404.406(6), Stats., 1995-96, and has been modified as follows:
Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank, a customer who does not within one year from the time after the statement and or items are made available to the customer (sub.I» discover and report the customer's unauthorized signature on or any alteration on the face or back of the item or does not within 3 years from' IhaL lime discover and report any unauthorized indorsement on the item is precluded from asserting against the bank such file unauthorized signature or indorsement, or such alteration. If there is a preclusion under this subsection, the payer bank may not recover for breach of warranty under s. 404,208 with respect to the unauthorized signature or alteration to which the preclusion applies.
1995 Wis. Act 449, § 84 (additions indicated by underlining, deletions indicated by interlineation). There is no substantive difference for the purpose of this appeal between § 404.406(4), Stats., 1991-92, and § 404.406(6), Stats. All references to "§ 404.406(4)" are to the 1991-92 edition of the statutes.

 In assessing Mr. Garlock's apparent common authority, it is important not to cloud one's reasoning with the accepted conclusion that Mr. Garlock did not have actual common authority over the garage loft. In this analysis, we must examine only the reasonableness of the officers' belief that Mr. Garlock had such authority.

 That the garage loft was located in a building separate from the Garlock home is not dispositive in this situation, since we are concerned with Mr. Garlock's apparent common authority, not his common habitation, of the premises to be searched. See State v. Zimmerman, 529 N.W.2d 171, 175 (N.D. 1995) *560("Common authority is not restricted to a single residence or dwelling. If the third party has control over or joint access to any property, common authority exists.").
The majority seems to think that this dissent references the Kieffers' need to use the Garlock home for such everyday activities as brushing one's teeth for the purpose of determining what the officers concluded about the Kieffers' actual or apparent authority to use the Garlock residence. See majority op. at 535 n.3. Much to the contrary, this information is of critical importance to the officers' assessment of whether the garage loft served as a separate "home" for the Kieffers, or merely as a separate bedroom of the Garlock residence. The officers' conclusions, if any, regarding the Kieffers' actual or apparent authority to use the Garlock residence are irrelevant.

 Interestingly, the only reason given by the majority for declining to adopt the legal presumption which other states have adopted in these situations is that Mr. Kieffer is not the child of Mr. Garlock. See majority op. at 552-53, 554 ("We disagree with the rationale in the foreign cases which have adopted such a presumption, as cited by the State, and decline to adopt such a presumption in a case where the defendant does not live with either of his parents."). I find this to be an artificial distinction, because it ignores the fact that Mr. Garlock's daughter lived in the garage loft. Mr. Garlock's apparent common authority to consent to a search of the garage loft should not be affected merely because the defendant is not his biological son.
*561I also note that many courts have upheld searches of 'a defendant's residence when consent for that search was given by a relative other than the defendant's parents. See Timothy E. Travers, Annotation, Admissibility of Evidence Discovered in Search of Defendant's Property or Residence Authorized by Defendant's Adult Relative Other Than Spouse — State Cases, 4 A.L.R. 4th 196, §§ 13-19 (1981) (reviewing cases which have upheld third-party consent searches authorized by brothers; sisters; grandparents; fathers-, mothers-, brothers-, and sisters-in-law; and cousins). If the majority declines to adopt such a presumption, it should do so based upon the merits of that presumption and not upon the artificial distinction which it advances today.