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. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT