State v. Sobczak
2012 WI App 6
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sobczak invited his girlfriend to stay at his parents' home for the weekend while they were away.
- She used Sobczak's laptop; she discovered child pornography and called the police.
- An officer arrived; the girlfriend allowed entry and permitted the search/seizure of the laptop.
- Sobczak was convicted of possession of child pornography and appealed, arguing lack of authority.
- The circuit court denied suppression, ruling the girlfriend had authority as a houseguest to consent to entry and examine the laptop.
- The court reviews suppression as a constitutional fact using a two-step factual-to-legal analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the girlfriend have authority to consent to entry and search? | Sobczak contends she lacked actual/apparent authority. | State argues she had authority as a weekend houseguest with run of the house. | Yes, she had actual authority to consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third party with common authority may consent to search)
- State v. Kieffer, 217 Wis. 2d 531 (1998) (expanded Matlock; actual authority requires mutual use or control)
- State v. Verhagen, 86 Wis. 2d 262 (Ct. App. 1978) (joint tenant with restricted access may lack authority to consent)
- State v. McGovern, 77 Wis. 2d 203 (1977) (non-resident with no mutual use cannot consent)