United States v. Kimoana
383 F.3d 1215, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19336, 2004 WL 2051381 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a premises is valid under the Fourth Amendment if police obtain consent from a third party who possesses either actual authority (mutual use and joint control) or apparent authority (facts available to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe the party had authority). A subsequent consent to search by another occupant is also valid if it is voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances, even following an initial show of force by police.
Facts:
- Nitokalisi Fonua ('Nick') approached Officer Robert Miner and confessed to stealing a GMC Blazer that was parked nearby.
- Officer Miner observed a sawed-off shotgun in the back of the stolen vehicle.
- Nick told Officer Miner he was staying in a room at a nearby Days Inn with his 'cousins', though Fonua Kimoana ('Defendant') was the registered renter.
- Nick stated he did not care if police searched the room for the key to the stolen vehicle and gave officers his key to the motel room.
- After officers knocked on the door, Patelo Vake opened it; Kimoana was also present inside.
- Following a protective pat-down of the occupants, officers asked Vake for consent to search the room for weapons.
- Vake gave his consent to search the room.
- Officers searched the room and discovered a long-barreled revolver under the mattress.
Procedural Posture:
- Fonua Kimoana was charged by a federal grand jury with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- In the United States District Court, Kimoana filed a motion to suppress the firearm as evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Kimoana entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the district court's ruling on the motion to suppress.
- Kimoana (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 warrantless search of a motel room, based on the consent of a non-registered occupant who possesses a key and later by another occupant after police have entered, violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the registered guest?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, J.
No, the warrantless search of the motel room did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The search was justified on two alternative grounds. First, the initial entry and search were justified by the consent of Nick, a third party with both actual and apparent authority. Nick had actual authority because his overnight stay and possession of a key demonstrated 'mutual use of the property by virtue of joint access.' Alternatively, he had apparent authority because the facts available to the officers—that Nick was staying in the room and had a key—would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution' to believe he had authority to consent. The search did not exceed the scope of consent to look for a car key, as a key could reasonably be found under a mattress, and the officers' subjective intent to find weapons is irrelevant. Second, once officers lawfully entered the room, the subsequent search was independently justified by the voluntary consent given by Patelo Vake. The court found Vake's consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances because, although officers initially entered with guns drawn, they holstered their weapons and the atmosphere became 'calm' before they requested consent, indicating there was no coercion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrines of actual and apparent authority for third-party consent searches, particularly in the context of shared transient living spaces like motel rooms. It clarifies that objective indicators, such as possessing a key and being an overnight guest, are sufficient to establish apparent authority for police to rely on, even if the consenter is not the registered guest. The ruling also provides a framework for analyzing the voluntariness of consent given after an initial show of force, establishing that holstering weapons and a de-escalation of the situation can cure the potentially coercive atmosphere, rendering subsequent consent valid.
