ILNews

Court: Girlfriend could consent to search

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a defendant's conviction of possession of ammunition by a felon, finding the defendant's girlfriend had the authority to consent to a search of the apartment by police when the defendant was not present.

In United States of America v. Daniel Groves Sr., No. 07-1217, the Circuit Court had to determine whether Daniel Groves' girlfriend, Shaunta Foster, could allow police to search their apartment without a warrant in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).

When Foster consented to the search of the apartment she shared with Groves in 2004, the Randolph case had not yet been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. That ruling came after Groves' case went before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals during Groves' first appeal of his conviction.

In this case, police responded to a call of shots fired in South Bend near Groves' apartment, and Groves admitted he lived at the residence where the shots were reported to have been fired. Groves refused the officers' request to search his apartment, and a federal magistrate denied the officers a search warrant. Police decided to go to his apartment when Groves was at work and talk to his girlfriend to see if she would let them in. Foster signed a consent form, and the agents found bullets in a drawer in Groves' nightstand. Groves moved to suppress the evidence found during the search, which was denied. In Groves' first appeal of this issue, the 7th Circuit directed the District Court to address three issues in the appeal: whether Foster had apparent or actual authority to consent to the search of the apartment, whether the Randolph ruling affected the suppression claim, and whether Foster voluntarily consented to the search.

On remand, the District Court issued its finding based on the Circuit Court's order and again denied Groves' motion to suppress. The federal appellate court affirmed the District Court ruling, finding evidence supports that Foster could consent to the search of the apartment. The District Court determined Foster was a co-occupant of the apartment and possessed common authority over it to allow for a search, including a search of the nightstand where the evidence was found. Foster told police there were no limits to where she could go in the apartment and said she had cleaned the nightstand even though she didn't use it, wrote Judge Illana Rovner.

Police didn't violate the standard held in Randolph - that "a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to police by another resident." The District Court found the police officers didn't do anything to cause Groves' absence from the apartment because they waited until he was at work to approach Foster. Groves also didn't object at the door, as is required in Randolph, and the facts in his case don't justify relief under Randolph, she wrote.

The District Court found Foster voluntarily consented to the search, saying she was of at least average intelligence, the officers didn't threaten her in order to convince her to allow the search, and the police advised her fully of her rights - including her right to insist on a search warrant, Judge Rovner wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT