Landlord's right to consent to search

[Atruckdriver]

In Florida

The situation...

Four roommates renting a house that is on the market to be sold to someone else who wishes to purchases it as a rental property. If the deed changes hands the rental agreement will remain intact.

Question #1

Could a police officer who suspected illegal drug use by one of the roommates pose as a someone wishing to buy the house as a means to tour the premises and gather information for a warrant?

Question #2

Could a police officer gain consent to search the premises by enlisting the help/consent of the landlord alone? Is there any situation in which the landlord could grant permission to search?

Question #3

If one roommate grants permission to search, is the officer allowed to search all rooms or just the common space?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

We don't do homework...

In Florida

The situation...

Four roommates renting a house that is on the market to be sold to someone else who wishes to purchases it as a rental property. If the deed changes hands the rental agreement will remain intact.

Question #1

Could a police officer who suspected illegal drug use by one of the roommates pose as a someone wishing to buy the house as a means to tour the premises and gather information for a warrant?

Question #2

Could a police officer gain consent to search the premises by enlisting the help/consent of the landlord alone? Is there any situation in which the landlord could grant permission to search?

Question #3

If one roommate grants permission to search, is the officer allowed to search all rooms or just the common space?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[JETX]

I agree about the 'homework'... but offer that the answer to all three is YES.

 

[HappyWanderer]

I completely agree with JETX.

 

[Seanscott]

Isn't paranoia wonderful?

 

[atomizer]

The answer to #2 is a big NO.

Though you can allow the police officer entry, you are opening yourself up for a lawsuit. Doing so would be a violation of the tenants right to privacy and the lease agreement.
There are exceptions such as when someones life is at risk.

#1 is also an illegal search and would be thrown out of court as well.

#3 is the only legal way to gain entry provided only the common areas or areas that the roommate has exclusive use of are searched.

Key point here is that a warrant to search the apartment must be obtained.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

The answer to #2 is a big NO.

Though you can allow the police officer entry, you are opening yourself up for a lawsuit. Doing so would be a violation of the tenants right to privacy and the lease agreement.
There are exceptions such as when someones life is at risk.

#1 is also an illegal search and would be thrown out of court as well.

#3 is the only legal way to gain entry provided only the common areas or areas that the roommate has exclusive use of are searched.

Key point here is that a warrant to search the apartment must be obtained.

how do you know it would violate the lease agreement? do you somehow have access to OPs lease?

 

[atomizer]

And of course.... all of that is crap!!
Posted by a legally ignorant addlepate.

Only a pretentious jerk that fancies himself as a legal scholar would be so stupid as to completely ignore the right to privacy.

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)

437 US 385 Mincey v. Arizona | Open Jurist

http://www.nynd-fpd.org/pleadings/memo on suppression of search of apt.pdf

 

[You Are Guilty]

Only a pretentious jerk that fancies himself as a legal scholar would be so stupid as to completely ignore the right to privacy.

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)

437 US 385 Mincey v. Arizona | Open Jurist

http://www.nynd-fpd.org/pleadings/memo on suppression of search of apt.pdf

Do you actually read these things before you cut and paste from other sources? (That's rhetorical). Rodriguez actually supports Jetx' argument; Mincey has nothing to do with third-party consent; and the last link is to someone's Memo of Law (and clearly where you got the idea Mincey was on point, which again, it is not).

My free advice: If you are going to defend yourself from claims you are an "addlepate", you might want to consider reading the links you post first.

 

[atomizer]

Do you actually read these things before you cut and paste from other sources? (That's rhetorical). Rodriguez actually supports Jetx' argument; Mincey has nothing to do with third-party consent; and the last link is to someone's Memo of Law (and clearly where you got the idea Mincey was on point, which again, it is not).

My free advice: If you are going to defend yourself from claims you are an "addlepate", you might want to consider reading the links you post first.

You have to read this in its entirety. Of course both arguments will be presented and discussed .You have to see the section on the courts ruling and why the decision was made.

I can’t believe I have to also cut and paste in addition to doing your homework!
==========================================================================


In general, a landlord does not have common authority over an apartment or other dwelling unit leased to a tenant. See, e.g., Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616-18, 81 S.Ct. 776, 779-81, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961). Thus, an officer's erroneous belief that landlords are "generally authorized to consent to a search of a tenant's premises" would not provide the authorization necessary for a warrantless search. United States v. Brown, 961 F.2d at 1041 (landlady's limited authority to enter the apartment to turn off electrical appliances or lights did not give her blanket authority to enter or consent to search).
33
A landlord does, however, have authority to consent to a search by police of dwelling units in his building that are not leased. See United States v. Williams, 523 F.2d 64, 66 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1090, 96 S.Ct. 884, 47 L.Ed.2d 101 (1976). Further, if the landlord has joint access or control over certain areas of his apartment building for most purposes, he may validly consent to a search of those areas. See, e.g., United States v. Kellerman, 431 F.2d 319, 324 (2d Cir.) (landlord of apartment building could validly consent to search of basement area, used by all tenants, which was under general control of landlord), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 957, 91 S.Ct. 356, 27 L.Ed.2d 266 (1970); United States v. Kelly, 551 F.2d 760, 764 (8th Cir.) (even assuming that tenant had reasonable expectation of privacy in common hallways of apartment building, landlord with joint access or control could consent to search), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 912, 97 S.Ct. 2981, 53 L.Ed.2d 1097 (1977). See also United States v. Warner, 843 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.1988) (consent valid if tenant not present and "landlord had an equal right of access to the premises").

http://openjurist.org/50/f3d/180

 

[You Are Guilty]

1. You cite an inapplicable case.
2. I point that out.
3. You defend your argument by citing a completely different case. (US v. Elliott, for those keeping score)

Yet I'm the idiot, huh?