State v. Gatlin, 2014 ND 162

Background

Police served an arrest warrant for Michael Sebjornson at a Grand Forks residence. An officer knocked; Ione Sebjornson (at the door) refused consent to search. Danny Sebjornson, present at the doorway, said he lived there, told officers Michael was inside, and led them into the house.
An officer followed Danny into a room, observed someone hiding in a closet, and discovered Luke Gatlin hiding there. A warrants check showed Gatlin had an active warrant; he was arrested and, when booked, a meth pipe was found on him.
Gatlin moved to suppress evidence obtained from the search, arguing Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations (and parallel state constitutional claims). The district court denied suppression, finding Gatlin lacked standing and had forfeited objection by not objecting during the search.
Gatlin entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia, preserving the suppression issue for appeal.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether Gatlin had a reasonable expectation of privacy as a guest, whether one occupant’s consent was effective despite another occupant’s refusal, and whether the search exceeded its permissible scope.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / expectation of privacy to challenge the search	State: Gatlin failed to prove a reasonable expectation of privacy or present evidence he was a guest with privacy interests	Gatlin: As a guest (or occupant), he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and could challenge the search	Held: Gatlin offered no evidence he was a guest or had authority; court assumed arguendo and evaluated consent. Gatlin lacked proof of a privacy interest on the record
Effect of occupant refusal where another occupant consents	State: Danny’s statements and conduct furnished apparent authority to consent to entry and common-area search	Gatlin: Ione’s express refusal should render the warrantless entry/search unreasonable as to anyone in the home	Held: Where one co-occupant actually or apparently consents and another does not object (or relevant person fails to assert refusal), consent can be relied on; Gatlin may not assert another’s objection if he did not object himself
Forfeiture by failure to object during the search	State: A person present who fails to object at the time loses the opportunity to seek suppression based on another’s refused consent	Gatlin: He preserved the issue by conditional plea and can challenge the search on appeal despite not objecting at the scene	Held: The court applied precedent that a present person who fails to object cannot later assert a third party’s refusal to suppress evidence; Gatlin’s failure to object undermined his suppression claim
Scope of consent / search of non-common areas	State: Danny’s conduct entering the room and indicating someone inside supported reasonable belief he had authority over that room; officer’s entry was within apparent scope	Gatlin: If initial entry was permitted, the officer exceeded scope by entering private areas (the closet/room)	Held: Under the facts, the officer reasonably believed Danny had authority over that room; discovery of Gatlin hiding in the closet was within the scope of apparent authority

Key Cases Cited

State v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 2006) (consent is an exception to the warrant requirement; standard of review on suppression)
State v. Oien, 717 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 2006) (reasonable expectation of privacy replaces old standing doctrine)
State v. Nguyen, 841 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2013) (two-part test for subjective and societal expectation of privacy)
State v. Hurt, 743 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 2007) (co-occupant who fails to refuse consent at the door "loses out" on excluding evidence from common-area consent searches)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (physically present occupant’s refusal prevails over another occupant’s consent as to that occupant)
United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (1993) (challengers must assert their own reasonable expectation of privacy; cannot rely on another’s)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guests may have Fourth Amendment protection)
State v. Uran, 758 N.W.2d 727 (N.D. 2008) (scope of consent measured objectively by reasonable understanding)
State v. Fischer, 744 N.W.2d 760 (N.D. 2008) (apparent authority exists if a reasonable person would believe the consenting party had authority to permit the search)
State v. Swenningson, 297 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 1980) (consent may be exclusive or shared among occupants)