Statement of Assignment: 1261872


ISSUE: Whether Roger, the live-in boyfriend of Darla Louise can Consent to the search of Darla’s cell phone when he had regular access to the phone in their residence?



                             State V Por Hue Vue    and  State V Darla Louise

                                       Factual Similarities

  • Warrantless search
  • Search initiated by third parties because of probable cause
  • Third parties were romantically involved with each other.
  • Both accused person was present during the search.
  • Police did not seek the defendants’ approval   before  the search

                               Factual differences

  •      In the State v Darla Louise, she appeared after the search had started and objected to search of her phone.
  •  In-state v Por Hue Vue, he did not object to any search

Case 2.

State v Matlock and State v Darla Louise

                                             Factual Similarities

  • Warrantless search
  • There was probable cause in both cases
  • Search initiated by third parties
  • Both third parties shared common tenancy with the accused persons
  • Both defendants were within the premises during the search
  • Police did not seek  the consent of the accused persons before the search

  Factual Differences

  • Darla Louise objected to the search of her phone                                       Illinois v Rodriguez and the State V Darla Case
  • Warrantless search
  • There was probable cause
  • Third parties consented to the search

               Factual Differences

  • In Illinois V Rodriguez, parties did not share common tenancy
  • In-State V Darla Louise, the third party and accused shared common tenancy.

Case 4. Georgia V Randolph

Factual Similarities

  • Warrantless search
  • Third-party consented to the search
  • Both Accused persons raised objections

Factual Differences

  • Police did ask for Randolphs permission before searching the house
  • Police began searching Darla’s phone before she objected
  • In Darla Louise, the third party shared common tenancy and were not separated while in Randolph’s case was the estranged wife

 The ruling in Georgia V Randolph differs from the ruling in U.S v Matlock, State V Por  Hue Vue, and Illinois v Rodriquez, where third party consent was overruled whereby the accused was present during the search and expressly objected.

 As to the Darla Louise case, Roger‘s consent is valid because he had probable cause to report the illegal activity and he shared common tenancy with the accused, Darla Louise. Also, the fact that Darla Louise had authorized his use of her phone makes the evidence consensual hence valid.


Georgia V Randolph, 547 U.S.103 (2006)

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

State V Por Hue Vue, 753 N.W.2d 767

United States v Matlocks, 415 U.S 1649(1974)