United States v. King
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24680, 84 Fed. R. Serv. 221, 627 F.3d 641 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a commercial premises does not violate the Fourth Amendment if law enforcement obtains voluntary consent from a third party whom they reasonably believe has authority over the property. Apparent authority can be established when an individual, such as an employee, possesses keys to the premises and the code to the alarm system.
Facts:
- Fernando King, a high-ranking member of the Latin Kings street gang, co-owned a taqueria with another high-ranking member, Augustin Zambrano.
- Jesse Guajardo, a government informant posing as a fellow gang member, asked King for protection for his cocaine distribution business.
- King told Guajardo that he and Zambrano required a payment of one kilogram of cocaine up front for this protection.
- On December 4, Guajardo delivered a sham kilogram of cocaine to King at the taqueria.
- King accepted the package and hid it in the piping above a refrigerator in the back of the restaurant.
- The next morning, before the restaurant opened, a cook named Antonio Cabrera-Lopez arrived for work.
- Cabrera-Lopez used a key to unlock the door and a code to disable the security alarm, at which point law enforcement officers followed him inside.
- After a Spanish-speaking agent arrived, Cabrera-Lopez orally consented to a search of the restaurant.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Fernando King on drug charges.
- King filed a motion in the U.S. District Court (trial court) to suppress the sham kilogram of cocaine seized from his restaurant.
- The district judge denied the motion to suppress, finding the cook had apparent authority to consent and that his consent was voluntary.
- After a week-long trial, a jury found King guilty on both counts.
- The district court sentenced King to a term of 240 months.
- King, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and the denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. 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 an employee who has keys to a business and the code to its alarm system have apparent authority to voluntarily consent to a warrantless search of the premises by law enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - Evans, Circuit Judge
Yes, an employee with such indicators of control has apparent authority to consent to a search. A warrantless search is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if a person who is reasonably believed to possess authority over the premises voluntarily consents. The test for apparent authority is objective: whether the facts available to the officers at the time would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe the consenting party had authority. Here, Cabrera-Lopez had keys to the restaurant and the code to the alarm. He opened the small establishment alone, which justified the officers' belief that he had sufficient control over the premises to grant access. The fact that officers knew he was not the owner is not dispositive, as authority rests on mutual use and control, not property law. The court also found his consent was voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances, noting the encounter was 'polite' and devoid of coercion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of apparent authority for third-party consent searches, particularly within a commercial context. It clarifies that objective indicators of control, such as possession of keys and security codes, are highly persuasive in establishing an employee's authority to consent to a search. The ruling provides law enforcement with a clear standard, potentially lowering the burden to find the actual owner before seeking consent from an employee who appears to be in charge. This precedent solidifies the principle that Fourth Amendment analysis focuses on the reasonableness of the officers' beliefs at the moment, rather than on technical property or employment relationships.
