Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Shaun S. Donald's motion to suppress evidence discovered during an administrative search of a residence shared with a probationer. The court held that the probation officers had reasonable grounds to search the residence, that the probationer's consent was sufficient absent an express objection by the present co-occupant, and that the evidence was in plain view. The court therefore affirmed Donald's convictions and the Superior Court's judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether probation officers had reasonable grounds to conduct a warrantless administrative search of the probationer's residence.
- Whether the Fourth Amendment requires officers to obtain express consent from a present co-occupant when an absent co-occupant with common authority has already consented to a search.
- Whether Donald's consent to the police officer's participation in the search was material to suppression when the probation officers independently conducted the search and the evidence was in plain view.
Holdings
- A warrantless administrative search of a probationer's residence is reasonable when supported by reasonable grounds, and the officers had reasonable grounds here based on the discovery and circumstances of the cocaine and the evidence linking Harrison to the residence.
- The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to affirmatively seek consent from a potentially objecting co-occupant who is present when another co-occupant has already provided valid consent. The present co-occupant must expressly object to prevent a warrantless consent search, absent another valid exception.
- The court did not need to decide whether Donald's consent to the police officer's participation was voluntary because suppression would not change the outcome: the probation officers independently conducted the search, and the evidence was in plain view.
Key quotations
“Police are not required "to take affirmative steps to find a potentially objecting co-tenant before acting on the permission they had already received."” (321)
“Donald could have prevented the search of her home without a warrant by expressly objecting to it. She did not.” (321)
“Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the administrative search of Harrison's home was reasonable.” (319)
Factual background
Police stopped Terrance Harrison, Donald's live-in boyfriend and a probationer, for traffic violations and discovered marijuana on his shirt and approximately four grams of crack cocaine, along with other items, in his vehicle. Harrison told officers that he lived with Donald at the residence, and a recent pay stub corroborated that address. Probation officers obtained supervisory permission to conduct an administrative search of the residence based on reasonable grounds to believe that Harrison was involved in drug activity and that evidence would be found there. Donald did not object when the probation officers entered and began searching, and the evidence used to convict her was found in plain view.
Procedural history
After Donald was charged with drug-related offenses, she moved to suppress evidence discovered at her residence. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding the administrative search reasonable and finding that probation officers reasonably determined that the residence was the probationer's home. Donald was convicted and appealed; the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed.