United States v. Terry
915 F.3d 1141 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, it is unreasonable for police to believe a third party has apparent authority to consent to a search of a residence based solely on the fact that she answers the door in a bathrobe. When faced with such ambiguous circumstances, officers have a duty to inquire further to determine the individual's authority over the premises before conducting a search.
Facts:
- DEA agents established surveillance on Dimitris Terry's apartment to arrest him for his role in a heroin conspiracy.
- After Terry left to take his son to school, agents waited for his return and arrested him outside the apartment building.
- Two agents then knocked on the door of Terry's apartment.
- A woman, Ena Carson, answered the door wearing a bathrobe and appearing sleepy.
- Without asking who she was or whether she lived there, the agents explained they had arrested Terry and asked to come inside.
- Carson allowed the agents to enter and immediately signed a consent-to-search form.
- After the search was underway, the agents learned that Carson was the mother of Terry's son but did not reside at the apartment.
- During the search, agents discovered letters addressed to Terry, four cell phones, and a suspected drug ledger.
Procedural Posture:
- Dimitris Terry was charged with federal drug offenses in the United States District Court.
- Terry filed a motion to suppress evidence from the apartment search, arguing the third-party consent was invalid for lack of apparent authority.
- Terry also moved to suppress his post-arrest statements, arguing he did not knowingly waive his Miranda rights.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied both motions to suppress.
- Following a bench trial, the district court found Terry guilty and sentenced him to 168 months in prison.
- Terry (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the denial of his suppression motions.
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 person who answers the door to a residence in a bathrobe have apparent authority under the Fourth Amendment to consent to a warrantless search of that residence?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrett, Circuit Judge.
No. A person answering the door in a bathrobe does not, by itself, give officers a reasonable belief that she has apparent authority to consent to a search of the residence. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard requires more than an assumption based on ambiguous facts. The court reasoned that apparent authority exists only when the facts available to an officer at the time of consent would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe the consenting party has joint access or control over the premises. Here, the agents only knew that a woman in a bathrobe answered the door, which at most suggested she may have spent the night. This created multiple equally plausible possibilities for her presence—such as being a one-time guest, a visiting friend, or a relative—that did not equate to authority over the property. The ambiguity of the situation created a duty for the agents to inquire further about her status before relying on her consent, which they failed to do. Relying on an 'inferential pileup' from a single fact falls short of the reasonableness required by the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision refines the apparent authority doctrine by clarifying that a single, ambiguous fact, such as attire, is insufficient to justify a warrantless search based on third-party consent. It reinforces law enforcement's duty to conduct further inquiry when authority is not clear, preventing officers from relying on 'willful ignorance' to circumvent the warrant requirement. The ruling establishes a higher bar for what constitutes a 'reasonable belief' of authority, thereby strengthening Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches in situations involving guests or other non-residents.
