NCJ Number
129795
Journal
Crime to Court Dated: (February 1991) Pages: 9-10
Date Published
1991
Length
2 pages
Annotation
Several judicial decisions support the legal doctrine that a police search of a vehicle without warrant or probable cause is proper and lawful if done pursuant to valid consent and the definition of the nature of a valid consent.
Abstract
The decision in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte established the general principle involved. Other decisions specify that the consent must be voluntary, that the person giving it must have the authority to do so, and that valid consent to a search may be given by a person who reasonably appears to have the authority to give it. In addition, a person who has joint access or control of a residence or vehicle may give valid consent. Furthermore, a drug-sniffing dog's alert to an object gives the police probable cause to search the object. In United States v. Dunkley, the court noted that Brown had apparent authority to consent to the search of the vehicle, even though he did not own it. It also left unanswered questions such as the extent to which a driver may consent to a search of a hidden or locked compartment or to a search over the objections of a passenger who has a superior possessory interest in the vehicle. Case citations