Flashcards Studio

Bea Lim lives with her live-in partner, Ken Santos, in a two-bedroom apartment. Two police officers, without a warrant, enter the unit to investigate a tip that drugs are stored there. Ken, who is not the owner but acts as the unit’s manager for maintenance purposes, signs a written consent to search the entire apartment, claiming he has authority to permit searches in the unit. The officers conduct a full search and seize a bag of illegal drugs from Bea’s closet. Bea is charged with possession of illegal drugs. During counsel interviews, Ken reveals that he felt pressured by the officers to consent to the search.
(a) Identify the controlling doctrine on illegal searches and seizures and the constitutional basis for the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy.
(b) Apply the doctrine to the facts: should the seized drugs be suppressed? Discuss whether Ken had actual or apparent authority to consent and whether his coerced consent affects admissibility. If any applicable exception could salvage the evidence, explain why or why not.