State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak
2013 WI 52
| Wis. | 2013Background
- Defendant Sobczak invited girlfriend Kristina Podella to spend a weekend at his parents' home; she was left alone there while he worked and was given permission to use his laptop.
- While using the laptop, Podella found a video she believed showed underage girls in sexual activity and called the police; Officer Dorn arrived and spoke with her on the porch.
- Podella invited Officer Dorn inside to view the video; she located and played the file on the laptop in the living room and pointed out other suspicious files; Dorn viewed those files and ultimately seized the laptop after supervisor authorization.
- Sobczak was charged with possession of child pornography and moved to suppress the evidence as an unconstitutional warrantless search of his home and effects; the circuit court denied suppression, and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Podella had actual authority under Matlock to consent to entry and to the search of the laptop; the Court affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sobczak) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a weekend guest can have actual authority to consent to police entry into a home | Podella was only a short-term guest and therefore lacked common authority to consent | Matlock permits third-party consent where the third party has "common authority" or sufficient relationship; guest status alone does not preclude authority | Court: Guest status is not dispositive; under totality of circumstances Podella had actual authority to permit entry |
| Whether Podella had authority to consent to entry into the living room specifically | A temporary guest lacks authority to admit officers into shared areas of the home | State: Podella was left alone, had unrestricted use of common areas, and was Sobczak’s girlfriend — factors supporting joint access | Court: Living room was a common area and Podella had joint access/control for most purposes; entry was valid |
| Whether Podella had authority to consent to search of the laptop (an effect within the home) | Even if entry was valid, she lacked authority to permit inspection of defendant’s personal computer | State: Podella had express permission to use the laptop, used it in a common area, files were accessible (no passwords), and she pointed out the files | Court: Separate analysis satisfied — she had common authority over the laptop for most purposes and validly consented to viewing the files she accessed |
| Whether the evidence must be suppressed despite any consent (alternative doctrines) | Suppression required because no valid consent; other doctrines not applicable | State relied on actual consent; court did not need to reach apparent authority, independent source, or inevitable discovery | Court: Because Podella had actual authority, evidence admissible; alternative doctrines not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent test: consent valid when given by one with common authority or other sufficient relationship)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (discusses co-inhabitant authority and "widely shared social expectations")
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (held a former occupant lacked actual authority to consent; court declined to find authority on those facts)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (emphasizes physical intrusion on the home is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (strong Fourth Amendment protection for homes; warrant generally required)
- Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (distinguishes authority to enter premises from authority to search private containers/effects)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope-of-consent principles applied to searches)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (heightened privacy protection in the home)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (Fourth Amendment applies to states via incorporation; exclusionary rule)