United States v. Henderson
2008 WL 3009968, 536 F.3d 776, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16615 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An occupant's express refusal of consent to a warrantless search of a shared dwelling is no longer effective once the objecting occupant has been lawfully arrested and removed from the premises, at which point a co-occupant may provide valid consent.
Facts:
- Police responded to a report of domestic abuse at the home of Patricia and Kevin Henderson.
- Patricia Henderson met officers on the front lawn, stating that her husband, Kevin, had choked her and thrown her out of the house. Officers observed red marks around her neck.
- Patricia informed the officers that Kevin had weapons in the house and had a history of drug and gun arrests.
- The Hendersons' son provided police with a key to enter the home.
- Upon entering, police encountered Kevin Henderson, who unequivocally told them to get out of his house.
- Police arrested Kevin Henderson for domestic battery and transported him to the police station.
- After Henderson was removed from the scene, Patricia Henderson signed a consent form and led police on a search of the home.
- The search uncovered firearms, crack cocaine, and other illicit items.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Henderson was charged in the U.S. District Court with federal drug and firearm offenses.
- Henderson filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his home, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment under Georgia v. Randolph.
- The district court (trial court) granted Henderson's motion and suppressed the evidence seized from the house.
- The government (appellant) appealed the district court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Henderson as the appellee.
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 resident's express refusal of consent to a search of his home remain effective to bar a subsequent search based on a co-resident's consent after the objecting resident has been lawfully arrested and removed from the scene?
Opinions:
Majority - Sykes, Circuit Judge.
No. A warrantless search of a shared dwelling is reasonable and valid when a co-occupant with common authority provides consent after an objecting occupant has been lawfully arrested and removed from the premises. The Supreme Court's holding in Georgia v. Randolph, which invalidates a search based on one co-occupant's consent over another's express objection, is narrowly limited to situations where the objecting resident is physically present. Here, Henderson was initially present and objected, but his lawful arrest for domestic battery and subsequent removal from the scene rendered him no longer 'present and objecting.' Once he was gone, his objection lost its force, and Patricia Henderson's shared authority allowed her to give valid consent. The court's 'social expectations' rationale in Randolph does not apply when the objecting party is no longer present to enforce their objection. To hold otherwise would grant an objecting tenant a continuing veto that extends beyond the specific circumstances addressed in Randolph.
Dissenting - Rovner, Circuit Judge,
Yes. An occupant's express objection to a search should remain effective even after their involuntary, albeit lawful, removal from the premises. The majority interprets Randolph too narrowly by focusing solely on physical presence. The 'social expectations' test from Randolph suggests a visitor, having been told to leave, would not feel welcome to enter just because the objector was forcibly removed. Because Henderson's removal was involuntary, he did not 'assume the risk' that his co-tenant would consent in his absence. Allowing a lawful arrest to nullify a prior, valid objection creates a loophole where police action, even if legitimate, can circumvent an individual's asserted Fourth Amendment rights. Henderson's objection created a tie that, under Randolph, could only be broken by a warrant.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the Supreme Court's ruling in Georgia v. Randolph, creating a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit. It establishes that a lawful arrest and removal of an objecting co-tenant extinguishes their objection, allowing police to seek and obtain valid consent from a remaining co-tenant. This ruling provides law enforcement with a clearer path to conduct consent searches in volatile situations like domestic disputes, where an aggressor might object before being justifiably arrested. The case reinforces that the Randolph protection is a 'fine line' that applies only when an objector is physically present and contemporaneously objecting, not as a continuing veto after their legitimate removal.
