United States v. Kimoana

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Criminal Law

Criminal LawFourth AmendmentConsent SearchesThird-Party Consentfelon in possessionmotion to suppressthird-party consentactual authority

Facts

After Nick approached Officer Miner and admitted he had stolen a nearby GMC Blazer, Miner saw a sawed-off shotgun in the vehicle and learned that Nick was staying in a Days Inn room with his "cousins." Nick said he did not care if officers searched the room for the vehicle key and did not care if they used his room key to enter if no one answered. Other officers went to the room, knocked, and Vake opened the door; they entered, ordered the occupants to show their hands, and performed a protective pat-down while their guns were drawn, then holstered their weapons once the room was secure. After Miner radioed that a 9mm shell casing had been found in the stolen vehicle and the room occupants might have more weapons, Officer Nesbitt asked Vake for consent to search for weapons, Vake agreed, and officers found a revolver under the mattress.

Issue

Whether the firearm should have been suppressed because the officers' warrantless entry into and search of the motel room violated the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the court considered whether Nick had authority to consent and whether the officers stayed within the scope of his consent, and alternatively whether Vake's later consent to search was voluntary.

Rule

A third party may validly consent to a search if he has actual authority through mutual use, joint access, or control for most purposes, or if officers reasonably believe he has such authority under the apparent-authority doctrine. The scope of consent is determined by what a typical reasonable person would have understood from the exchange, and consent to search for a specific item includes places where that item could reasonably be found. A consent search is valid only if consent is freely and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances, without coercion, force, or intimidation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albuquerque, Omar Silva told police that he was staying in a motel room with friends, had slept there the night before, kept a duffel bag inside, and carried a working room key. The room was registered in Lena Park's name. Omar told officers they could search the room for a missing pickup-truck key.

Is Omar's consent most likely sufficient to justify the officers' entry and search of the room for the truck key?

Explanation. Actual authority does not turn on formal property interests or registration status. It depends on mutual use of the property by virtue of joint access or control for most purposes. An overnight occupant who keeps belongings in the room and carries a key likely has actual authority to consent to a search of the shared room. (Derived from United States v. Kimoana (n.d.).)