United States v. Purcell - 526 F.3d 953 (6th Cir. 2008)

Rule:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's search jurisprudence typically requires officers to possess a warrant before conducting a search. There are, however, exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of those well-delineated exceptions is the consent of the person searched. An officer with consent needs neither a warrant nor probable cause to conduct a constitutional search. And one of the other exceptions is the existence of exigent circumstances.

Facts:

An officer received a tip that defendant, Frederick Purcell, Jr., an escapee from prison, was staying at a hotel with his girlfriend, Yolande Crist. They also received an information that defendant was a meth manufacturer and that he had been arrested for manufacturing meth. Upon reaching the hotel room, and after they had been consented by the defendant’s girlfriend to search the room, they discovered marijuana in a duffel bag. Although the girlfriend indicated that the bag belonged to her, the officer found that it contained only men's clothing. Shortly thereafter, another officer found the firearm in a backpack that also contained only defendant's clothing. The district court denied defendant's motion to suppress the marijuana on the ground that the girlfriend's apparent authority justified the search of the first bag. Plaintiff, the Government, sought interlocutory review of an order granting a motion to suppress firearm evidence in defendant's trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm, a fugitive from justice knowingly possessing a firearm, an unlawful use of marijuana in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), (2), (3), and a possessor of marijuana, 21 U.S.C.S. § 844(a).

Issue:

Did the district court err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the marijuana on the ground that the girlfriend's apparent authority justified the search of the first bag?

Answer:

No. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the motion to suppress the firearm.

Conclusion:

The district court did not err when it suppressed the firearm. The court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the district court erred in suppressing the firearm that was found in the second bag. Exigent circumstances did not justify the search because there was no evidence to suggest that methamphetamine manufacturing was going on in the hotel room. Further, the officers did not have consent to search the second bag because the girlfriend's apparent authority, which justified the search of the first bag, dissipated upon discovery of the men's clothing and was not reestablished thus leaving the girlfriend without apparent authority to consent to the search of the second bag.