United States v. Cesar Duran
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 4500, 957 F.2d 499, 1992 WL 48584 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse is presumptively considered to have the authority to consent to a search of all areas of the marital homestead. A non-consenting spouse can only rebut this presumption by demonstrating that the consenting spouse was explicitly denied access to the specific area that was searched.
Facts:
- Karen Duran went to a Foot Locker store to have a pair of high-top tennis shoes laced.
- A Foot Locker employee discovered three packages of what appeared to be marijuana inside the shoes and called the police.
- When Karen Duran returned to the store, police arrested her and, with her consent, searched her purse, finding cash, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia.
- At the police station, Karen Duran was advised of her Miranda rights and admitted that her husband, Cesar Duran, sold large quantities of marijuana.
- Karen Duran then signed a form consenting to a search of the Duran residence, several outbuildings, and an old farmhouse on their property.
- Karen Duran believed the old farmhouse was Cesar Duran's private gym and she never personally used the structure.
- During the search, police discovered approximately 28 pounds of marijuana inside the old farmhouse.
Procedural Posture:
- Cesar Duran was indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute and one count of using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Duran filed a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing his wife’s consent to the search was invalid.
- After an evidentiary hearing, a magistrate judge recommended that the suppression motion be denied.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Duran's motion to suppress.
- Duran entered into a conditional plea agreement, pleading guilty to the possession count while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion; the government dismissed the firearm count.
- Cesar Duran, as the appellant, appealed the district court's ruling on the suppression motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 spouse have authority under the Fourth Amendment to consent to a search of a separate building on the marital property which they do not personally use, but to which they have not been denied access?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A spouse has the authority to consent to a search of a separate building on the marital property they do not use, as long as they have not been denied access to it. The court rejected creating a per se rule that spousal authority extends to every part of a property, as this would ignore that spouses can maintain individual privacy. Instead, the court established a rebuttable presumption that one spouse has the authority to consent to a search of the entire homestead. This presumption is based on the mutual use and joint access inherent in a marital relationship. To overcome this presumption, the non-consenting spouse must show that the consenting spouse was actively denied access to the specific area in question. In this case, Cesar Duran failed to rebut the presumption. Karen Duran's mere non-use of the farmhouse was insufficient, particularly because she testified that she could have entered the building if she had wanted to, demonstrating she was not denied access. Therefore, her consent was valid, and the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent for third-party consent searches in a marital context by creating a rebuttable presumption of spousal authority. It shifts the burden of proof to the non-consenting spouse, who must now affirmatively demonstrate they took steps to deny their partner access to a specific area to maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy from them. This framework provides law enforcement with greater certainty when relying on spousal consent and makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge such searches based on nuanced usage patterns within a household. The ruling balances the practicalities of marital cohabitation with the Fourth Amendment's privacy protections, distinguishing the spousal relationship from that of mere roommates.
