United States v. Sharon Legail Welch
4 F.3d 761, 93 Daily Journal DAR 11485, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6742 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party's consent to search a shared space, such as a vehicle, does not extend to a personal container belonging to another individual within that space unless the third party has actual or apparent authority over the container itself.
Facts:
- Sharon Legail Welch and David Anthony McGee were gambling at the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas.
- Casino employees suspected them of using counterfeit twenty-dollar bills and escorted them to a security office for questioning.
- Eleven counterfeit bills were found in McGee's handbag.
- McGee gave written consent to a search of the rental car he and Welch had driven to Las Vegas.
- In the trunk of the car, security officers found several pieces of luggage and a woman's purse.
- The officers opened the clasped purse and discovered Welch's driver's license and $500 in counterfeit bills.
- The officers returned to the security office with the purse, and Welch identified it as hers.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Legail Welch was charged in a five-count superseding indictment in federal district court.
- Welch filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence seized from her purse.
- The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation to deny the motion.
- The district court judge accepted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Welch's motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Welch on all counts.
- Welch, as the appellant, appealed her conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the denial of her 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 co-occupant's general consent to a search of a vehicle extend to the search of a companion's personal purse found within that vehicle, when the co-occupant lacks shared use, joint access, or control over the purse?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt, J.
No. A co-occupant's consent to search a vehicle does not authorize the search of a companion's personal purse found inside because the co-occupant lacks the requisite authority over the highly private container. The government has the burden of establishing the effectiveness of a third party’s consent, which can be done by showing actual authority, express authorization, or apparent authority. While McGee had actual authority to consent to the search of the car due to joint access and use, this authority did not extend to Welch's purse, a container in which a person holds the highest expectation of privacy. The shared control of a 'host' property does not forfeit the expectation of privacy in containers within it. Furthermore, there was no evidence of express authorization from Welch, and apparent authority did not apply because the facts available to the officers—that Welch was McGee's girlfriend and the purse belonged to a woman—would not lead a reasonable officer to believe McGee had authority over the purse. Any such belief would be an error of law, not fact, which cannot validate a search under the apparent authority doctrine.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of third-party consent searches under the Fourth Amendment, particularly regarding personal containers within shared spaces like vehicles. The ruling establishes that consent to search a general area does not automatically confer authority to search items with high privacy expectations belonging to others found within that area. This decision reinforces the principle that authority to consent must be specifically established for the item being searched, not merely for the larger 'host' property. Consequently, law enforcement must be more diligent in ascertaining a third party's authority before searching personal effects like purses or briefcases discovered during a consent search.
