Officer Nelson Case Essay

2. Officer Nelson performed an extensive investigation to resolve any ambiguity and reasonably conclude W.M. had authority to consent to the search.
W.M.’s unusual relationship with Mr. Larson prompted Officer Nelson to engage in an extensive and thorough investigation to resolve any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding W.M.’s authority to consent to the search of the apartment. “[W]here an officer is presented with ambiguous facts related to authority, he or she has a duty to investigate further before relying on the consent.” United States v. Kimoana, 383 F.3d 1215, 1222 (10th Cir. 2004). Even when consent is accompanied by an explicit assertion of residency, if the surrounding circumstances cause a reasonable person to doubt the party’s authority, the officer must proceed with further inquiry. United States v. Rosario, 962 F.2d 733, 738 (7th Cir. 1992).
had common authority to consent to the search of the cell phone because she had joint access and mutual use of the cell phone shared with Mr. Larson. To determine whether a third party’s has apparent authority to consent to the search of an object or container, the court must look at the third party’s common authority or other sufficient relationship to the object. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Apparent authority is measured under an objective standard of reasonableness, and focuses on whether the facts available to the officer at the time of the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution” to believe the third party had authority to consent to the search. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990). While authority to consent to a search of a residence does not automatically provide authority to search containers, an officer may make a reasonable conclusion that a third party has common authority based on their joint access and mutual use of the object to be searched. United States v. Ruiz, 428 F.3d 877, 882 (9th Cir.