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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT