United States v. Mosley Williams, No. 21-2066 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant moved to suppress items found during a warrantless search of the apartment he shared with his girlfriend. The district court granted the motion as to the narcotics found in a black bag, concluding the search that led to the discovery of the narcotics exceeded the scope of his girlfriend’s consent to search the apartment. As to the other evidence, the court denied the motion.
The government filed an interlocutory appeal, asserting the district court erred when it focused on ownership of the bag rather than his girlfriend’s authority to give consent for the search and the Eighth Circuit reversed.
The question before the court was whether Defendant’s girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to the search of the bag. The court held that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement, which may be given by a third party with common authority or apparent authority over the premises or effects. Here, at the time of consent, law enforcement officers knew: (1) Defendant had directed his girlfriend to move the gun owned by and registered to her to a specific place within the apartment; (2) she voluntarily led the officers to the location of the gun; and (3) she had access to the bag and never indicated it was Defendant’s bag or that her ability to use or access the bag was limited. As the sole lessee, Defendant had actual and common authority over the apartment and consented to the search of the entire apartment for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The government appeals an order suppressing evidence. The district court erred in suppressing the evidence found during a warrantless search of a bag; the sole lessee of the apartment, defendant's girlfriend, had actual and common authority over the apartment and consented to a search of the entire apartment; the bag was in a common area in the apartment, appeared to a gender neutral item, and the officers could reasonably believe that she had authority over the bag and could consent to its search.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.