United States v. Timothy Richards, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1967

Officers attempted to serve an arrest warrant for a third party (Wilson) at Rawls’ home; they entered after being invited inside and did not have a search warrant for the residence.
In the kitchen officers observed drugs and paraphernalia in plain view and engaged Richards, who resisted a pat-down; a handgun and knife were discovered when he was subdued and handcuffed.
During a subsequent protective sweep officers entered a west bedroom Richards used; the bedroom door had a hasp and padlock but was unlocked when entered, and officers saw suspected cocaine in an open briefcase.
After backup arrived, Detective Pulver read Rawls his rights, Rawls signed a written consent form consenting to a full search, and officers searched the residence.
Richards moved to suppress the evidence; the district court denied two suppression motions (consent capacity and authority to consent/apparent authority/exigent-circumstances grounds). Richards was convicted on all counts and appealed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: Rawls had capacity to consent and, although he lacked actual authority over the locked bedroom, officers reasonably believed he had apparent authority, so the warrantless search was valid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rawls had mental capacity to voluntarily consent to a warrantless search	Richards: Rawls (86) was confused/out of touch and therefore incapable of giving voluntary consent	Govt: Officers observed no signs of confusion/intoxication; Rawls was informed of rights, read and signed consent	Court: No clear error — consent voluntary based on totality of circumstances
Whether Rawls had authority to consent to search of west bedroom (and if not, whether apparent authority or exigency validated search)	Richards: Rawls lacked actual authority (Richards exclusively used and padlocked bedroom); padlock should have alerted officers to atypical arrangement	Govt: Officers reasonably believed homeowner had authority; door was unlocked, Rawls invited search, no indications of another occupant asserting control; exigent-sweep alternative	Court: Rawls lacked actual authority but officers reasonably (objectively) believed he had apparent authority; search valid (no need to decide exigency)

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless home entries)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party consent — common authority concept)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (apparent authority: objective reasonable belief permits warrantless search)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (limits on co-tenant consent when another occupant objects)
United States v. Grap, 403 F.3d 439 (Seventh Circuit: mental infirmity does not automatically invalidate consent; focus on officer’s observations)
United States v. Bell, 500 F.3d 609 (describing narrow exceptions to warrant requirement)