R
RSR26
Guest
What is the name of your state? What is the name of your state? Florida
Cops go to defendant's house to arrest him. They knock on door and an unknown man answers the door and says "come in." Question here is-- does the man who answerd the door have actual or apparent authority to allow cops into house. Since cops knew nothing about him, he did not have apparent authority. But what about actual? Well the facts later revealed that the man answering the door was staying as a temporary guest at the defendant's home to attend defendant's wedding. My position is that a transient guess does not have actual authority to allow entry; the person allowing entry must have more substantial property rights in the dwelling before allowing in the police.
second issue is that the cops asked the man where the defendant was, to which he said "he's in the back room asleep" and he pointed to the room. From this statement, the cops entered teh man's bedroom and are now arguing that they had "implied consent" from the man. Im saying that the man's answer was not a consent to search, but rather the answer to the officer's question. What say the rest of you.
Cops go to defendant's house to arrest him. They knock on door and an unknown man answers the door and says "come in." Question here is-- does the man who answerd the door have actual or apparent authority to allow cops into house. Since cops knew nothing about him, he did not have apparent authority. But what about actual? Well the facts later revealed that the man answering the door was staying as a temporary guest at the defendant's home to attend defendant's wedding. My position is that a transient guess does not have actual authority to allow entry; the person allowing entry must have more substantial property rights in the dwelling before allowing in the police.
second issue is that the cops asked the man where the defendant was, to which he said "he's in the back room asleep" and he pointed to the room. From this statement, the cops entered teh man's bedroom and are now arguing that they had "implied consent" from the man. Im saying that the man's answer was not a consent to search, but rather the answer to the officer's question. What say the rest of you.