Flashcards Studio

At a private fitness club, the accused, a club member, stores his personal belongings in a staff locker that is accessible to club employees and members. A police team, without a search warrant, compels the club’s security supervisor, Ms. Bautista, to sign a written consent to search the club’s lockers, including the accused’s locker, claiming she has authority to permit searches on behalf of the club. Ms. Bautista later tells counsel that she felt pressured by the officers to sign. The police search the accused’s locker, and they seize a bag containing illegal drugs. The accused is charged with possession of illegal drugs. The defense moves to suppress, arguing the search violated the Constitution. (a) Identify the controlling doctrine on illegal searches and seizures and the constitutional basis for suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy. (b) Apply the doctrine to the facts: should the seized drugs be suppressed? Address whether Ms. Bautista had actual or apparent authority to consent and whether her coerced consent affects admissibility. If any applicable exception could salvage the evidence, explain why or why not.