Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)
Facts:
In this case, the respondent was Edward Rodriguez. The police arrested him while he was in his apartment and charged him with illegal possession of drugs. The police officers found drugs in his apartment, but they did not have an arrest or search warrant, when they entered the apartment. Gail Fischer, a woman who reported domestic abuse, provided access to the apartment saying that she had her own clothes and furniture in that apartment. The woman used her key to unlock the door, although the respondent stated that he never gave her the keys. She was the one who gave the police officers her permission to conduct searching. The respondent was granted the motion to suppress the seized physical evidence (drugs and related materials) as the trial court held that at the time the woman gave permission to enter the apartment, she did not possess common authority as she had already quitted the apartment. The court rejected the State’s contention about violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Court of Appeals of of Illinois affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Need Help Writing an Essay?
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project.
Write My Essay For MeLegal Question:
Could the warrantless search be prohibited under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution if the police officers failed to receive consent from an individual who legally possessed common authority to provide access to the apartment?
Decision:
The Court held the decision that the police officers’ search was permissible in that case because of their reasonable belief in the fact that the woman who called the police was a responsible party who gave her consent to conduct the search. The US Supreme Court placed emphasis on the reasonableness for the police’s decision to accept the consent granted by the party with authority. As mentioned by the Court, a warrantless entry was valid provided that at the time of the entry, the police officers reasonably believed that the third party possessed common authority over the premises, although in fact she did not have that authority.
Court’s Rationale:
The majority held that it was critical to judge the validity of consent searches because limitation of the object’s of search expectation of privacy did not play a critical role in the situation, in which there was a warrant requirement for third-party consent searches. The police officers conducted the warrantless search, which was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. In this case, the police action was characterized as a reasonable response to the situation faced by the police officers in the apartment. In other words, it was reasonable for the police officers to believe that the woman (Fischer) possessed authority over the premises.
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissent stated that a warrant or exigent circumstances should be taken into consideration by the police before conducting any warrantless search. Justice Marshall’s dissent was based on the rejection of any searches that depend on the validity of the third-party consent. In other words, only a warrant or exigent circumstances could be used to determine “reasonableness” of the police actions. It was illegal to violate the privacy rights of the object of the search, according to the dissent.
Significance of the Case:
The case Illinois v. Rodriguez was significant in the criminal justice system because of the dependence on the concept of good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The US Supreme Court relied on good faith exception to confirm the constitutionality of searching procedures in case of reliance on apparent authority of a third party to consent. In Illinois v. Rodriguez, the police officers reasonably believed that the woman they met in the apartment possessed the authority to give consent to provide access to the apartment, although they were wrong. In this case, the US Supreme Court recognized good faith exception which helped them to solve the crime and arrest the criminal.
Conclusion:
The effect of the case was important to the US Supreme Court and lower courts for the reason that the Court’s decision held that a third party’s consent to an entry and search could be perceived as valid. The good faith exception should be used by the police officers in the situations which require taking into consideration the circumstances of the case in order to succeed in criminal procedures. The Fourth Amendment is the exclusionary rule that is aimed to deter the police actions and to provide protection of the court’s integrity. The court’s decision in the case Illinois v. Rodriguez is influential as it supports the actions of the police and contributes to reduction of crime rate.
References
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990). JUSTIA US Supreme Court. Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/177/
DO MY ASSIGNMENT!Order essays, research proposal, capstone project, speech/presentation, book report/review, annotated bibliography, discussion, article critique, coursework, projects, case study, term papers, research papers, reaction paper, movie review,and more.
TOO MANY ASSIGNMENTS? Let our professional writers help you!
