2019 CO 108
Colo.2019Background
- After returning from a trip, Williams’s wife found suspected drugs and paraphernalia in his travel bag, placed them in a soap dish, and hid it in the garage.
- Mrs. Williams met police at church, asked them to collect the items, and accompanied Officers Colvin, Reed, and Sparacio back to the home.
- At the house Mrs. Williams consented and invited officers inside; she retrieved the soap dish from the garage and handed it to an officer.
- Williams was physically present in the living room; he told officers to leave only after his wife had let them in and they had opened the soap dish containing methamphetamine and a pipe.
- Officers arrested Williams and seized the contraband; his motion to suppress was denied, a jury convicted him, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari on limited issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Fourth Amendment search occurred when officers entered with co-occupant’s consent and recovered contraband hereto removed by her private search | The entry and seizure constituted a search implicating Fourth Amendment protections and should be suppressed | Even if a search occurred, Mrs. Williams’s voluntary consent and private removal of the items rendered the officers’ actions lawful or the fruits attributable to a private search | Court did not decide whether a constitutional "search" occurred because it resolved the case on Randolph/Fernandez grounds (affirmed on other grounds) |
| Whether Randolph’s rule forbids police from remaining when one occupant consents but a physically present co-occupant later objects (objected after entry) | Williams argued that his contemporaneous presence meant his later objection defeated his wife’s consent and officers had to leave | People argued Randolph requires the objector to actually object at the time officers request/receive consent; a later revocation does not vitiate prior valid consent | Held for People: Randolph applies only if the present co-occupant objects at the time officers request and receive consent; Williams’s objection after officers entered did not nullify his wife’s consent |
| Whether the inevitable-discovery exception saves the seizure if exclusion would be required | Williams argued inevitable-discovery did not apply because officers were not pursuing alternate lawful means at the time of the seizure | People argued inevitable-discovery could validate admission of the evidence | Court did not reach the inevitable-discovery issue because it found no Fourth Amendment violation under Randolph/Fernandez framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (held a physically present co-occupant’s contemporaneous refusal to permit entry defeats another occupant’s consent)
- Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014) (clarified Randolph: exception applies only when objector is present and objects at the time another occupant grants consent)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (consent by a third party with common authority can justify a warrantless search as to an absent nonconsenting occupant)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent common authority suffices if officers reasonably believe the consenting person has authority)
- Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013) (applied a proximity/physical-presence principle in a related Fourth Amendment context)