Consent can be an effective tool in the police investigator's arsenal; when asked for permission to search, individuals with plenty to hide often defy common sense and waive their constitutional right to privacy.
Evidence confiscated during a consent search is admissible in court, as long as the police officer conducting the search follows fundamental requirements of the consent to search doctrine. A question related to consent searches that remains unanswered by the U.S. Supreme Court, however, is whether police officers can rely on an individual's consent that is given in the wake of another individual's refusal to consent. Based on parameters of the consent to search doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Schneckloth, Matlock, Rodriguez, and Jimeno, consent represents a viable exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement when obtaining a warrant is not practical. The Supreme Court has ruled that the standard for reviewing the lawfulness of a consent search is objective reasonableness, thereby obviating the need for police officers to be absolutely correct when conducting a search pursuant to consent. Moreover, the legality of a search following conflicting responses to a request for consent has received approval from lower courts where the consenting person has at least equal access and control over the area being searched. The overall effect of recent court cases is that consent has become a more valuable investigative tool. Legal and policy considerations for police investigators when seeking consent from one person following another person's refusal to consent are discussed. 24 endnotes and 2 photographs