# Who has the authority to refuse or consent to a vehicle search? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 26, 2007, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278 "2007-12-26T13:29:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Emilio\_Lizardo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Emilio\_Lizardo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emilio_Lizardo)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/1 "2007-12-26T13:29:14Z")
Is the driver of a vehicle the sole person who can consent to or refuse a vehicle search by a police officer? Suppose my wife is driving my car, registered in my name only, and I’m in the passenger seat. Do I have any say in this? Who gets the blame for anything the cop finds? ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/2 "2007-12-26T15:19:47Z")
Factually, it depends on whether you and your wife are co-users of the car (actual ownership is irrelevant). Realistically a car is almost always searchable without consent. A car is per se searchable: 1. With probable cause (but no warrant) whenever it is not parked in the owner’s driveway 2. With no suspicion whenever the driver is arrested (“Search Incident to Arrest”). 3. With no suspicion whenever the car is impounded (“Inventory Search”). Plus 4. the passenger compartment can be “frisked” for weapons whenever the driver is stopped, on reasonable suspicion there is a weapon in the car (“Car Frisk”). If a car is searched in violation of these rules (ie without the required quantum of suspicion) the evidence is only suppressed as to the person whose rights wewre violated. Stay with me here. Your wife is driving the car. She is stopped illegally and the car is searched illegally. The police find your stash of crack in the backseat, with your fingerprints all over it. The crack is only suppressed in _your wife’s_ trial as accomplice. She was the one stopped and searched. As to you for possession of crack with intent to distribute, it is admissable because _your_ rights were not invaded. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/3 "2007-12-26T15:44:13Z")
So with or without probable cause a police officer can search your car, no? ---
**Author:** ![Emilio\_Lizardo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Emilio\_Lizardo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emilio_Lizardo)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/4 "2007-12-26T15:45:50Z")
Bear with me here. I was imagining a situation where we are, say, pulled over for some minor traffic infraction, perhaps driving 7 miles per hour over the speed limit. We are clean-cut and driving a nice car, with two kids in the back seat. There is no reason for the officer to suspect we have any sort of weapons. He asks my wife, who is driving: “Do you mind if I search your vehicle?” I know that my wife is within her rights to refuse consent to the search. My question is, is she the ONLY one who has that authority in that situation? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/5 "2007-12-26T16:03:25Z")
[QUOTE=Hello Again] Factually, it depends on whether you and your wife are co-users of the car (actual ownership is irrelevant). Realistically a car is almost always searchable without consent. A car is per se searchable: 1. With probable cause (but no warrant) whenever it is not parked in the owner’s driveway 2. With no suspicion whenever the driver is arrested (“Search Incident to Arrest”). 3. With no suspicion whenever the car is impounded (“Inventory Search”). Plus 4. the passenger compartment can be “frisked” for weapons whenever the driver is stopped, on reasonable suspicion there is a weapon in the car (“Car Frisk”). [/QUOTE] Correct. > [@](#): > > If a car is searched in violation of these rules (ie without the required quantum of suspicion) the evidence is only suppressed as to the person whose rights wewre violated. Stay with me here. > > Your wife is driving the car. She is stopped illegally and the car is searched illegally. The police find your stash of crack in the backseat, with your fingerprints all over it. > > The crack is only suppressed in _your wife’s_ trial as accomplice. She was the one stopped and searched. As to you for possession of crack with intent to distribute, it is admissable because _your_ rights were not invaded. I don’t think that’s quite right. > [@](#): > > Held: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-8120](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-8120) ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/6 "2007-12-26T16:08:13Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Correct. I don’t think that’s quite right. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-8120](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-8120) [/QUOTE] Sorry. I assumed the husband was not in the car; I imagined the wife was driving alone in a shared car when I wrote that. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/7 "2007-12-26T16:14:01Z")
[QUOTE=Emilio Lizardo] Who gets the blame for anything the cop finds? [/QUOTE] You probably both get arrested, at least. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-809](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-809) [QUOTE=Hello Again] I assumed the husband was not in the car [/QUOTE] I thought that might be the case. Yes. Non-passengers can’t object to vehicle searches, at least under the circumstances we are talking about here. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/8 "2007-12-26T16:39:10Z")
What if the owner specifically forbids searchs of his vehicles as a general policy? Suppose I were the owner of a trucking firm and a hard-core anti-government type. Could I instruct my drivers that they were never to consent to any vehicular searchs? And what would be the legal implications if a driver overrode my direction and consented to a search anyway? As the property owner, I would feel I have the right to make the decisions regarding my property even if I was not present. Letting the driver make the decision about whether my truck could be searched seems like the police showing up at my house when I’m not home and asking the meter man if they can search it - the driver and meter man are just contract employees who are physically present not the owners who have the authority to make decisions about the property. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/9 "2007-12-26T16:57:02Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Could I instruct my drivers that they were never to consent to any vehicular searchs? [/QUOTE] Sure. That’s a matter of agency law. > [@](#): > > And what would be the legal implications if a driver overrode my direction and consented to a search anyway? As the property owner, I would feel I have the right to make the decisions regarding my property even if I was not present. Letting the driver make the decision about whether my truck could be searched seems like the police showing up at my house when I’m not home and asking the meter man if they can search it - the driver and meter man are just contract employees who are physically present not the owners who have the authority to make decisions about the property. Here’s a guy who made nearly the same argument–and lost: [http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:KdqVEHhSBXYJ:www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/035901.wpd+authority+to+consent+to+search+vehicle+employee&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a](http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:KdqVEHhSBXYJ:www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/035901.wpd+authority+to+consent+to+search+vehicle+employee&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a) From a different case: > [@](#): > > The test of whether a third party has sufficient status to consent to a search is whether the third party possesses common authority over or has some other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects searched. U. S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974); State v. Middleton, 266 S.C. 251, 258-259, 222 S.E.2d 763, 766 (1976). Common authority is defined as mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable for officers to believe the person granting consent has the authority to do so. Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171, note 7. Accord State v. Cannon, 336 S.C. 335, 520 S.E.2d 317 (1999)(noting that any person with an equal right to use or occupy property may consent to its search). > > Whether an individual has actual authority to consent to a search is not, however, necessarily dispositive. In Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held a consent to search may be valid if based upon apparent authority. The Court stated, “determinations of consent to enter must be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment . . . warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises?” 497 U.S. at 188. See also United States v. Whitfield, 939 F.2d 1071, 1074 (D.C.Cir.1991); State v. Williams, 655 N.E.2d 764 (Ct. App. Ohio 1995)(finding Rodriguez applicable to situations in which an officer would have had valid consent to search if the facts were as he reasonably believed them to be).3 [http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLfiles/SC/25262.htm](http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLfiles/SC/25262.htm) If you were physically present and objecting to the search, you might have a better case: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-1067](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-1067) (evidence inadmissible against objecting co-occupant of home despited other occupant’s consent). ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/10 "2007-12-26T17:02:41Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] What if the owner specifically forbids searchs of his vehicles as a general policy? Suppose I were the owner of a trucking firm and a hard-core anti-government type. Could I instruct my drivers that they were never to consent to any vehicular searchs? And what would be the legal implications if a driver overrode my direction and consented to a search anyway? As the property owner, I would feel I have the right to make the decisions regarding my property even if I was not present. Letting the driver make the decision about whether my truck could be searched seems like the police showing up at my house when I’m not home and asking the meter man if they can search it - the driver and meter man are just contract employees who are physically present not the owners who have the authority to make decisions about the property. [/QUOTE] The meter man actually can consent to the search of your home, if the officers reasonably believe that he’s a person with authority to consent to the search. It’s called the apparent authority doctrine, from [Illinois v. Rodriguez](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-2018.ZO.html), 497 U.S. 177 (1990). Apparent authority applies to vehicles as well, so if your driver consents and the officer has no reason to know about your objection, the consensual search will be valid. ETA: or, what **GFactor** said. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/11 "2007-12-26T18:12:17Z")
[QUOTE=Emilio Lizardo] Bear with me here. I was imagining a situation where we are, say, pulled over for some minor traffic infraction, perhaps driving 7 miles per hour over the speed limit. We are clean-cut and driving a nice car, with two kids in the back seat. There is no reason for the officer to suspect we have any sort of weapons. He asks my wife, who is driving: “Do you mind if I search your vehicle?” I know that my wife is within her rights to refuse consent to the search. My question is, is she the ONLY one who has that authority in that situation? [/QUOTE] The law is not at all clearcut on this question. A Supreme Court case - Georgia v Randolph - suggests that if coequal residents of a home do not agree as to consent, there is no consent. The reasoning of that opinion is considered pretty shaky though, and has never been applied to a car search. What actually happens when your wife consents, and you don’t, is that the officer becomes confused. Perhaps if he is extremely diligent he calls his HQ and/or the DA (if he can raise one) who, it turns out, cannot provide him with specific guidance. In all likelihood he does the search anyway and lets the courts sort it out. Of course if, during the encounter, either of you becomes aggressive, or commits any misdemeanor offense in his presence, you have probably created reasonable suspicsion sufficient to a car frisk and/or a SIA. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/12 "2007-12-27T02:59:43Z")
[QUOTE=Hello Again] What actually happens when your wife consents, and you don’t, is that the officer becomes confused. Perhaps if he is extremely diligent he calls his HQ and/or the DA (if he can raise one) who, it turns out, cannot provide him with specific guidance. In all likelihood he does the search anyway and lets the courts sort it out. [/QUOTE] I don’t think the officer gets confused. I think the officer searches the vehicle. As we’ve discussed before, if the officer finds nothing, no harm no foul (good luck vindicating your civil rights); if the officer finds something, there are a number of doctrines that could permit the “something” to be admitted in evidence. **Hello Again** , I’m a good ten years out of law school, so I’ll rely on you for this: if two people have apparently co-equal authority to authorize a search, and one does authorize the search (while the other does not), is the search valid? Clearly yes, if the non-consenting person doesn’t speak up. What happens if the consenter says yes, and the non-consenter says no – is the search valid? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/13 "2007-12-27T03:10:10Z")
[QUOTE=Campion] if two people have apparently co-equal authority to authorize a search, and one does authorize the search (while the other does not), is the search valid? Clearly yes, if the non-consenting person doesn’t speak up. What happens if the consenter says yes, and the non-consenter says no – is the search valid? [/QUOTE] Probably not against the non-consenter: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-1067](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-1067) and see posts 9 and 10. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/14 "2007-12-27T03:17:07Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Probably not against the non-consenter: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-1067](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-1067) and see posts 9 and 10. [/QUOTE] Well, consider a wee bit of my faith in the Constitution restored. I’d assumed the Court would come out differently. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/15 "2007-12-27T03:22:43Z")
[QUOTE=Campion] Well, consider a wee bit of my faith in the Constitution restored. I’d assumed the Court would come out differently. [/QUOTE] Me too. Here is a thread where we discussed _Georgia v. Randolph_: [SCOTUS ruling [searches when owners disagree Re police entry] [ed. title]](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=364035) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/16 "2007-12-27T03:23:06Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] The meter man actually can consent to the search of your home, if the officers reasonably believe that he’s a person with authority to consent to the search. It’s called the apparent authority doctrine, from [Illinois v. Rodriguez](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-2018.ZO.html), 497 U.S. 177 (1990). Apparent authority applies to vehicles as well, so if your driver consents and the officer has no reason to know about your objection, the consensual search will be valid. ETA: or, what **GFactor** said. 🙂 [/QUOTE] Under what circumstances would a meter man have apparent authority in the scenario **Little Nemo** suggested? if I read your cite correctly, the person with apparent authority was a resident of the house. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/17 "2007-12-27T03:59:27Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Me too. Here is a thread where we discussed _Georgia v. Randolph_: [SCOTUS ruling [searches when owners disagree Re police entry] [ed. title]](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=364035) [/QUOTE] How do I miss all these things? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/18 "2007-12-27T04:02:16Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Under what circumstances would a meter man have apparent authority in the scenario **Little Nemo** suggested? if I read your cite correctly, the person with apparent authority was a resident of the house. [/QUOTE] [Meter man knocks, identifies himself, and is permitted entry by homeowner, who has taken some pills and is pretty woozy. Homeowner disappears into another part of the home and passes out in a puddle of vomit. Meter man is oblivious, reads the meter, puts his coat on, which conceals his uniform, and prepares to leave.] Officer: [knocks on door] MM: [Opens door] Good afternoon officer! Officer: How are you doing today sir, we’ve had complaints that you’ve got some farm animals living in here, we can resolve this quickly. MM: [Not wishing to identify himself because he hasn’t paid child support in 10 years tries to get out of there as smoothly as possible.] Sure officer. I’m on my way back to work, but my brother is still here. Is it ok if I go? Officer: Sure. [Searches home and uncovers guns, money, drugs, child pornography, and illegally imported cigarettes.] It gets a bit more complicated if the meter is outside, as many are, but suppose you knew the meter man and had given him permission to use your bathroom, even when you weren’t home; or that he did so without permission. In either case, he answers the door. _Cf._, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2004\_app/519166maj&invol=3:](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2004_app/519166maj&invol=3:) > [@](#): > > throughout her interaction with the officers, Dangel acted as if she was in control of the premises. Dangel answered the door when the officers knocked and agreed to let them in. At no time did she check with anyone inside the apartment nor did she say that anyone else was inside. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and the trial court did not err when it concluded that the circumstances were not ambiguous, that no further inquiry was necessary, and that the officers could reasonably believe Dangel had authority to consent to a search of Morse’s apartment. The concurrence in this case notes that other courts have required a more searching inquiry from police: > [@](#): > > If a third party does not have common authority over the premises, > consent may still be valid if the third party had ‘apparent’ authority to > consent. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 188. Rodriquez established a two pronged > test for determining whether a third party has apparent authority. A third > party has apparent authority to consent if ‘‘the facts available to the > officer at the moment . . . warrant a man of reasonable caution in the > belief’ that the consenting party had authority over the premises?’ Id. > (emphasis added) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, > 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, if > the surrounding circumstances are such that a reasonable person would doubt > that the consent was valid, police officers must conduct further inquiry. > Id. > The majority is correct that this court has never explicitly applied > the apparent authority test with reference to a consent to search question. > Majority at 11. The Washington Court of Appeals and courts in other > jurisdictions have applied the federal apparent authority test, however, > and although those rulings are not binding on this court, they provide > insight into the application of the test. > Division One of the Court of Appeals has held that a temporary guest > does not have apparent authority to admit police officers to conduct a > search or execute an arrest warrant. State v. Holmes, 108 Wn. App. 511, > 519-20, 31 P.3d 716 (2001) (because the person who claimed to be a > coinhabitant did not have a key, police officers should have doubted her > authority to consent, despite her explicit assurance that she lived there); > State v. Ryland, 65 Wn. App. 806, 829 P.2d 806 (1992) (a houseguest who had > spent the previous night on the living room couch did not have apparent > authority because the officer did not inquire into the extent of the > guest’s authority). > Other jurisdictions that have applied the apparent authority test have > reached conflicting conclusions, however. Apparent authority has been > found when the third party provided police officers with indicia of > authorization prior to being admitted, or when the third party’s > relationship to the defendant suggested such authority. Flanagan v. State, > 440 So. 2d 13, 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (third party who engaged in > lengthy negotiations with police prior to allowing them to enter trailer > had apparent authority); People v. Shaffer, 111 Ill. App. 3d 1054, 1059, > 444 N.E.2d 1096, 1099, 67 Ill. Dec. 612 (1982) (defendant’s brother, > although not an occupant of ‘indefinite duration,’ was not merely a casual > visitor); Nix v. State, 621 P.2d 1347, 1350 (Alaska 1981) (defendant’s > friend, who occasionally spent the night at the apartment, had apparent > authority to admit defendant’s sister accompanied by an undercover police > officer). > Courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that a third party did > not have apparent authority when the police made no inquiry about the third > party’s authority prior to entering. State v. Buhler, 137 Idaho 685, 52 > P.3d 329, 332-33 (Ct. App. 2002) (tenant’s guest did not have apparent > authority because police did not know how long he had been there, whether > he had a key, or whether he had free access to the premises); People v. > Pickens, 275 Ill. App. 3d 108, 655 N.E.2d 1206, 1210, 211 Ill. Dec. 823 > (1995) (officers could not accept at face value a consenting party’s > apparent assumption that he has authority; police should have inquired > further into social guest’s authority). In addition, one federal district > court has held that a defendant’s girl friend did not have apparent > authority to permit a search of his apartment when the police failed to > make further inquiry about the girl friend’s claim that she was authorized. > United States v. Gonzalez Athehorta, 729 F.Supp. 248, 258 (E.D.N.Y. 1990). [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005\_sc/759154CO1&invol=4](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/759154CO1&invol=4) So in some jurisdictions, the police would probably have to ask some questions before they would be justified in believing the guy had authority. In those jurisdictions we’d need some additional facts, to be sure. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/19 "2007-12-27T04:09:30Z")
**Gfactor** , Why does the meter man have to come inside? Meters are on the outside so that no one has to be home for the meter to be read. Most meters today are wireless and can be read from the street. Does lying to the cops make one an apparent authority? Would that search be upheld? How do either of these scenarios jibe with **Little Nemos** ’? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278/20 "2007-12-27T04:11:31Z")
[QUOTE=Campion] How do I miss all these things? [/QUOTE] I only checked out the case because I heard about it on NPR and was certain the result had been misreported. (More than once I’ve heard a denial of certiorari reported as “Today the Supreme Court let stand . . .[fill in your favorite plainly wrong result here]” and thought. . . holy crap, who writes this stuff?) I was pleasantly surprised this time. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-has-the-authority-to-refuse-or-consent-to-a-vehicle-search/431278.md?page=2)