Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court held that the Georgia v. Randolph exception to third-party consent searches does not apply when a physically present co-occupant objects only after another occupant has consented and officers have entered the residence. Kirk Thomas Williams’s wife consented to officers’ entry to retrieve drugs and paraphernalia, and Williams objected only afterward. The court affirmed the judgment upholding denial of his motion to suppress, on grounds different from those relied on by the court of appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Georgia v. Randolph exception to third-party consent applies when a physically present co-occupant objects only after another occupant has consented to police entry and the officers are already inside the residence.
- Whether the officers violated Williams's Fourth Amendment rights by remaining in the residence after his subsequent request that they leave.
- Whether the court needed to decide whether the entry and seizure constituted a Fourth Amendment search or whether the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied.
Holdings
- The Randolph exception applies only when, at the time officers receive an occupant's consent to search, a co-occupant who is physically present on the premises objects. A co-occupant's objection made after officers have entered pursuant to another occupant's consent cannot vitiate the previously given consent.
- Because Williams did not object when his wife consented and invited the officers inside, the officers were justified in remaining in the residence after his later request that they leave and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
Key quotations
“Because we do, we hold that the Randolph exception, as clarified in Fernandez, applies only if, at the time the officers receive an occupant’s consent to search, a co-occupant who is physically present on the premises objects.” (¶ 41)
“Mr. Williams’s subsequent objection, after the officers had already entered his home and were in the process of taking possession of the drugs and paraphernalia, could not vitiate the consent previously provided by his wife.” (¶ 42)
Factual background
Williams's wife discovered methamphetamine and a glass pipe in his travel bag, removed the items, and hid them in the garage. She contacted police, consented to their entry into the jointly occupied residence, and permitted them to retrieve the items. Williams was physically present in the living room but did not object when his wife allowed the officers to enter; he asked them to leave only after they were inside and in the process of taking possession of the drugs and paraphernalia.
Procedural history
The district court denied Williams's motion to suppress methamphetamine and a glass pipe, and a jury convicted him of possession of more than two grams of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to one year in community corrections. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari in part and affirmed the judgment on grounds different from those relied on by the court of appeals.