United States v. Zoila Melgar
227 F.3d 1038, 2000 WL 1346854, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 23477 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party's general consent to a search of a premises extends to closed, unmarked containers within that premises, unless the police have reliable information or objective indicators that the container belongs to someone other than the consenting party.
Facts:
- Madison police officers were investigating a counterfeit check scheme and learned that a Rita Velasquez had rented Room 136 at a local Holiday Inn.
- Officers went to the room and encountered several individuals; Rita Velasquez, Marcella Hernandez, and Zoila Melgar arrived later.
- Velasquez informed an officer that Melgar had given counterfeit checks to Hernandez, who had placed them in her purse.
- After a search of one of Hernandez's purses yielded nothing, officers found and searched a second, unclaimed black purse containing fake checks, leading to Hernandez's arrest.
- Velasquez, who had rented the room, then gave officers her oral and written consent to conduct a general search of the entire room.
- After all individuals were arrested and removed, officers began searching the room.
- An officer found an unmarked, floral purse between the mattress and box springs of one of the beds.
- Inside the purse, the officer discovered an identification form with Melgar's photograph (under the name 'Diana Lopez') and a counterfeit check.
Procedural Posture:
- Zoila Melgar was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and interstate transportation of counterfeit securities.
- In the district court, Melgar filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse.
- The district court denied Melgar's motion to suppress, justifying the search on the basis of the 'inevitable discovery' doctrine.
- Melgar entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved her right to appeal the district court's denial of her suppression motion.
- Melgar, as appellant, appealed the denial of her 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 a third party's general consent to search a premises, such as a hotel room, extend to the search of an unmarked, closed container within that premises when the police have no reason to believe the container belongs to someone other than the consenting party?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, J.
Yes, a third party's general consent to search a premises extends to an unmarked, closed container within it unless police have reliable information indicating the container is not under the consenting party's control. The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not apply where valid consent is given. A general consent to search a space includes consent to search containers within that space where a reasonable officer would construe the consent to extend to the container. The critical question is whether the risk of uncertainty about ownership should fall on the police or the defendant. The court holds that a search is permissible if police do not have reliable information that the container is not under the consenter's control, rejecting the stricter standard that police must have positive knowledge of the consenter's authority over the container. Here, the purse had no exterior markings, police knew another woman in the room had two purses, and Velasquez knew police were looking for checks which could easily fit inside a purse. Unlike cases where a container is clearly marked with another's name, the police had no reason to believe this purse did not belong to Velasquez, so the search was within the scope of her consent.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of third-party consent searches regarding closed containers, particularly in multi-person settings like a hotel room. It establishes a default rule that general consent to search a space presumptively includes unmarked containers, shifting the burden to the defendant to show why police should have known the container belonged to someone else. This aligns the legal standard for consent searches of containers in a dwelling with the established precedent for automobile searches, making it easier for law enforcement to conduct searches without needing to ascertain ownership of every single container they encounter.
