United States v. Clutter
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6139
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Clutter pleaded guilty conditionally to receiving and possessing child pornography; district court denied suppression.
- Police traced a December burglary to the Clutter home and, with Joel Clutter's permission, seized computer equipment.
- Officers later preliminarily reviewed seized discs and identified potential child pornography, prompting a further investigation.
- On January 22, with Clutter in custody, officers obtained Joel Clutter’s consent to seize three computers; a warrant followed to search their contents.
- The question on appeal was whether Joel had actual or apparent authority to consent to the January 22 seizure, and whether the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Joel Clutter had actual or apparent authority to seize the three computers. | Clutter argues Joel lacked authority to consent. | Clutter contends government failed to prove Joel used or had access to the computers. | Seizure reasonable; consent valid under totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent based on joint access to property)
- United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2003) (apparent authority standard for third-party consent)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (reasonableness standard for third-party consent)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (seizure vs. search; temporary interference with possessory interests)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (distinction between seizure and search; timing implications)
- United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (3d Cir.) (third-party consent to computer search; reasonable reliance on authority)