Fare v. Scott K.
155 Cal. Rptr. 671, 24 Cal. 3d 395, 595 P.2d 105 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent may not validly consent to a warrantless police search of a minor child's personal property over which the parent does not exercise common authority, such as joint access or control.
Facts:
- The 17-year-old defendant's mother found marijuana in his desk drawer.
- She gave the marijuana to a neighborhood police officer and expressed her belief that her son might be selling it.
- A week later, Narcotics Officer Schian informed the defendant's father by phone of his son's impending arrest.
- After arresting the defendant in the family garage, Officer Schian brought him into the house, where the father consented to a search of the defendant's bedroom.
- During the search, officers found a locked toolbox.
- The father told the officers he did not have a key and that the toolbox belonged to his son.
- When the defendant claimed to have lost the key, an officer demanded the keys from his pocket, used one to open the toolbox, and discovered nine baggies of marijuana inside.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was the subject of a juvenile court proceeding on a charge of possessing marijuana for the purpose of sale.
- In the juvenile court, which acts as the trial court, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in his toolbox, arguing the search was illegal.
- The trial court ruled the defendant's arrest was illegal but denied the motion to suppress, finding the father’s consent to the search was valid.
- Following this adverse ruling, the defendant admitted the charge, was adjudged a ward of the court, and was placed on probation.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's order, specifically challenging the denial of his suppression motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent's consent validate a warrantless police search of their minor child's locked personal property when the parent lacks common authority over that property?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, J.
No. A parent's consent does not validate a warrantless search of a minor child's personal property where the parent lacks common authority. Minors are considered 'persons' under the Constitution and possess Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures that the government must respect. While a minor's rights are not coextensive with an adult's, a parent cannot summarily waive their child's constitutional protections for the child's own effects. For third-party consent to be valid under the 'common authority' test from United States v. Matlock, the consenting party must have mutual use and joint access or control over the property. In this case, the father's ownership of the house and his parental duty to control his son did not establish common authority over the locked toolbox, which he acknowledged belonged exclusively to his son. Therefore, his consent was invalid, and the search was unreasonable.
Dissenting - Clark, J.
Yes. A parent's consent should validate the search due to the parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, discipline, and control of their minor children. This parental authority is greater than the state's and allows a parent to curtail a child's constitutional rights within the home. A parent who reasonably believes their child is engaged in criminal activity must be allowed to investigate, and if that investigation involves searching locked items, it is a justified exercise of parental authority. The father could have searched the box himself, and therefore, he could authorize the police to act as his agent in conducting the search. The majority's decision improperly diminishes parental authority.
Dissenting - Richardson, J.
Yes. The search was valid because a parent may consent to a police search of a minor child's property if there are reasonable grounds to believe the place or thing searched will yield criminal evidence. This approach balances the parent's right to maintain a lawful home against the child's qualified Fourth Amendment rights. A minor in these limited circumstances has no reasonable expectation of privacy against a search authorized by a parent acting on reasonable suspicion. Here, the parents had discovered marijuana previously and had information from others, giving them reasonable grounds to suspect trafficking. Therefore, their consent to search the most logical place for concealment, the locked toolbox, was proper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends Fourth Amendment protections to minors within the family home by rejecting the proposition that parental authority automatically includes the power to consent to police searches of a child's private effects. It establishes that the 'common authority' test for third-party consent applies in the parent-child context, requiring the state to prove the parent had shared use or joint control over the specific item searched, not just general authority over the child or ownership of the premises. This raises the bar for warrantless searches of a minor's belongings based on parental consent, requiring police to be more diligent in establishing actual authority or obtaining a warrant. The case solidifies the legal status of minors as separate constitutional persons in relation to the government, even within the family unit.
