University:
Santa Ana College
Course:
CJ 109 | Community Interaction
Academic year:

2021
Views:

328

Pages:

1
Author:

esfredint7qo

Illinois vs. Rodriguez 497 vs. 177 (1990) FACTS: On July 26, 1985 police arrived at Dorothy Jackson’s house. They were greeted at the door by Gail Fischer, Dorothy’s daughter. She showed signs of being severely beaten and said that she was beat by a man name Edward Rodriguez. Fischer consented to going with the police to his house to unlock the door for them. During the time that Fischer described the incident she referred to Rodriguez’s apartment as “our” apartment. She had belongings there and it was unclear as to if she had been living there. They went to Rodriguez’s apartment without a warrant of any kind. They got consent from Fischer and entered the apartment. Immediately they saw drug paraphernalia and white powder that was later found to be cocaine. They went to the bedroom and found Rodriguez asleep. He was arrested and the drugs were seized. Rodriguez was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. He motioned to suppress all the evidence due to the fact that Fischer had vacated the apartment of her things and had no authority to consent to it being searched. The Cook County Circuit Court granted the motion. They said that she was not a resident, but just a visitor. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. QUESTION: Should evidence from a third party’s consent be allowed at trial? YES OPINION: Scalia, J. joined by Rehnquist, C.J. and White, Blackmun, O’Connor, and Kennedy, JJ. 1. An exception to a warrantless search is a consented search 2. Fischer had left the apartment and as of July 1 of 1985 she was no longer apart of the apartment 3. We disagree that it was okay for the officers to search because they had reason to believe that Fischer was telling the truth a. The person has to know that his rights have been waived. This case saw Fischer do it for him 4. The search always has to reasonable no matter what the circumstances 5. It is not always okay for officers to enter a premise with someone’s consent 6. Judgment is reversed and remanded DISSENT: Marshall, J. along with Brennan and Stevens, JJ. 1. A third party should not be able to consent to searches unless they are of a controlling power a. Business owner, apartment landlord, etc 2. We reject this because people should be safe in their person, places, papers, and effects 3. There could have easily been a warrant obtained in this case a. There was no need for a speedy arrival on the scene of his apartment 4. There is a limited expectation of privacy in this case

Illinois vs Rodriguez Case

Related Documents

Description

Related Documents

Almost There!

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock