Also known as: authorities to consent · power to consent · consent authority
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The legal power of a third party to grant valid consent to an interference with another's property or privacy rights. This power exists when the third party shares common authority over the premises or chattel or otherwise holds the ability to permit the interference. Consent from such a person binds the owner or occupant even if the owner later objects.
Kirk, a utility technician, entered Dominic's fenced backyard after Regina, the next-door neighbor, assured him that Dominic was away and entry was fine. Regina had no access rights or control over Dominic's property. Dominic later sued Kirk for trespass. The court held Kirk liable because Regina lacked authority to consent on Dominic's behalf.
Detectives investigating fraud arrived at an apartment shared by Vernon and Queen. Queen, who paid half the rent and held a key, invited the officers inside and unlocked a home office door using a spare key from a common drawer. Vernon later moved to suppress evidence seized from the office. The court ruled Queen's common authority over the premises made her consent effective against Vernon.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Agents tracking a beeper inside a can obtained consent from a commercial storage facility manager to enter the locker area. The manager had no authority over the specific locker rented by the defendants. The court held that the manager's consent did not validate the search of the defendants' locker.
Police sought to search a home for drug evidence. Janet Randolph consented, but her husband Scott Randolph, who was present, expressly refused. Officers searched anyway based on Janet's consent and found incriminating items. The court suppressed the evidence because one occupant's refusal overrides the other's consent when both are present.
Police impounded a vehicle and conducted a routine inventory search without a warrant. The owner had not consented and was not present. The court upheld the search as reasonable under standardized procedures even without owner consent.
Officers obtained consent from Mrs. Coolidge to search the family home and garage while her husband was absent. She had full access and control over the premises as a co-occupant. The court found her consent valid and binding on her husband.
A co-occupant has authority when the person has common authority over the premises through mutual use or joint access and control. Courts assess whether the consenting party could permit the search in their own right. Apparent authority also suffices if officers reasonably believe the person has such power.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a physically present co-occupant expressly refuses consent, that refusal controls and invalidates the search even if another occupant consents. The refusal demonstrates that the search is not based on mutual agreement among those with authority.
Supporting sources
No. Only the possessor or someone with actual or apparent authority to consent on the possessor's behalf may grant effective consent. A neighbor or other unrelated person lacks this power, so their consent does not protect an entrant from trespass liability.
Supporting sources
No. A parent with access to a room may consent to a search of the room itself but lacks authority over locked containers under the child's exclusive control. The container's separate privacy interest prevents the parent's consent from extending to it.
Supporting sources
…by his wife's consent over his express refusal. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Janet Randolph had common authority to consent to the search. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, 264 Ga. App. 396, 590 S. E. 2d 834 (2003), and was itself sustained by the State Supreme Court, principally on the ground that "the…