PD-0866-24 01/29/2025
“A majority of the court of appeals erred in finding that the lead detective was not reasonable in believing that Appellee’s mother had apparent authority to consent to the search of her apartment, including Appellee’s bedroom.”
Suarez, who was eighteen years old, lived in an apartment with his mother (Mother), and his mother’s niece. Police arrived at the apartment during an investigation of a nearby shooting. Suarez was already in custody outside on a separate matter when Detective Davis arrived. Davis explained the need to search the apartment for a gun, as the suspect was apprehended but had no gun on him. Mother had let other officers into the apartment for a protective sweep without objection. He asked if she was “the adult here, this is your home?” She said yes. Davis then read the consent form along with her, which she signed. Suarez remained outside during the search. At no point did Mother come out to ask Suarez’s permission for officers to enter his room. Multiple firearms, ammunition, and a cell phone were recovered. Suarez was charged with murder.
Suarez filed a motion to suppress. At the hearing, Mother testified that no one in the apartment was free to enter Suarez’s room without permission. This included her, even though the lease was in her name and she paid the rent. The trial court granted the motion. It held that, in light of the number of people living there, Davis was unreasonable in accepting Mother’s claim of authority to consent to a search of the entire apartment without checking with Suarez.
The court of appeals affirmed. It recognized that the reasonableness of apparent authority depends on widely shared social expectations such as the expectation that family members share access, control, and use of their home and the items in it. It also recognized that there is no burden on the police to eliminate the possibility of atypical arrangements in the absence of reason to doubt that norms apply. But it held that there was an ambiguity in the situation due to the other family members present and/or living there at the time that required further inquiry before reliance on apparent consent was objectively reasonable.
The State recognizes that officers must make reasonable inquiries when “ambiguous circumstances arise” but argues they did not in this case. Davis knew the people present were family as opposed to roommates and that Mother authorized an earlier sweep of the apartment, and she answered affirmatively that it was her home and that she was “the adult here.” A reasonable officer should be able to rely on that.
