Consent Search Extends to All Property Not Clearly that of a Third Party

State of Utah v. Tina Harding, 2010 UT App. 8, (Utah Court of Appeals, January 22, 2010).

Tina Harding was a passenger in a car that was stopped by on officer for an equipment violation. The officer checked the driver’s documents and learned that neither she nor any of the car’s occupants held a valid license. The officer cited the driver and told her she was free to go. The driver then asked the officer a question and he requested to search the vehicle. The driver consented. Two bags were in the rear storage area. Without asking whom they belonged to the officer searched the bags. In Defendant’s bag, he found drugs and drug paraphernalia. He arrested Defendant, who later moved to have the evidence suppressed. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court finding that the officer could have objectively concluded that the bags belonged to the driver and thus subject to the consent-search. The Court continued and stated that any belief that the bags belonged to one of the other passengers would have been speculation.

Dissent: Trial court found that the officer had “no way of knowing to whose bags they were.” The state bears the burden of showing that the one who consents to the sear has authority to do so. The officer could have easily ascertained whom the bags belonged to and sought proper consent, but he failed to do so.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/mds/sandoval011410.pdf