State v. A. S.

Consent is not limited to consent given by the person against whom evidence is offered . . . valid consent can be given by a third party if that person has control over access to or use of the premises or effects to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 US 164, 170-171 (1974).

Youth appealed the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a gun police had found in youth’s bedroom. The search was based upon the consent of the youth’s grandmother, the homeowner. On appeal, Youth argued “exclusive authority” over his room due to a lack of mutual agreement between himself and his grandmother, and that his express objection to the search outweighed any authority his grandmother may have. In response, the state argued that Youth’s grandmother had lawful authority to consent to the search, despite Youth’s objection, because she retained full control over the premises, including Youth’s bedroom. Consent is not limited to consent given by the person against whom evidence is offered . . . valid consent can be given by a third party if that person has control over access to or use of the premises or effects to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 US 164, 170-171 (1974). The Court found the grandmother’s consent was sufficient to enable a search of Youth’s bedroom because Youth “completely assumed all risk” that his grandmother would consent to a search as she retained the “full quantum authority” to validly consent. The Court held that shared use of most of a premises provides a basis to presume common authority for any family member to consent to a search, while the rights and responsibilities of the adults . . . give rise to superior authority vis-à-vis minors residing in the household. Affirmed.