443 P.3d 618
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Youth (16) lived with his grandmother in her owned home for ~2.5 years; he had his own bedroom, paid no rent, and the door was never locked.
- Grandmother regularly entered, cleaned, and controlled the bedroom; she consistently asserted "it's my house" and that she could go into his room without permission.
- Police, investigating a reported handgun incident, went to the home; grandmother led officers into youth's bedroom while youth and friends were present and asleep.
- Youth expressly refused the officer's request to search; grandmother immediately consented aloud and officers found a firearm in plain view on a shelf.
- Juvenile court denied youth's suppression motion; youth appealed, arguing grandmother could not validly consent over his contemporaneous objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Youth) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandmother had authority to consent to a warrantless search of youth's bedroom | Grandmother lacked authority as to him because he asserted exclusive control and explicitly objected when police sought to search | Grandmother, as homeowner and head-of-household, retained superior/control over premises she permissively let him occupy and thus could consent | Court held grandmother had actual authority under common-authority principles; consent valid and motion to suppress properly denied |
| Whether Randolph's "present objecting co-occupant" rule bars search when objector is a minor living with adult homeowner | Randolph should apply to block consent because a physically present co-occupant objected | Randolph's exception applies to co-equals; familial hierarchy (homeowner adult vs. minor) creates a superior authority for the adult, so Randolph doesn't control | Court held Randolph inapplicable: in family/owner-minor context adult homeowner's superior authority prevails over minor's contemporaneous objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes warrant requirement and exceptions like consent)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party with common authority can consent to search)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (present co-occupant's objection defeats another occupant's consent in co-equal situations)
- State v. Bonilla, 358 Or. 475 (Oregon Article I, §9 analysis parallels Fourth Amendment; distinguishes actual vs apparent authority)
- State v. Carsey, 295 Or. 32 (family-household consent issues; no per se rule for parental/grandparental consent)
- State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 249 Or. App. 435 (limits on common-authority where control is not shared)
- State v. J. D. H., 294 Or. App. 364 (mother's common authority over 17-year-old son's room where she exercised access and control)