S. V. Taylor Case Study

The most comparable case that is corroboration that the Sixth circuit test should control is U.S. v. Taylor. The Defendant’s female roommate consented to a search of the house for firearms while the Defendant was at the house. The officers did not ask the Defendant for his consent when the officers saw a shoe box in the closet covered with mens clothes. David Fallsbauer had a shoe box on a dresser which contained his clothes, as Taylor had his shoe box covered by his clothes. Because in both cases a female consented to a general search, the officers had no reason to believe that the shoe box was the property of either male defendant, Taylor or David Fallsbauer. In light of this ambiguity of the ownership of the shoe box, it was required that officers only search the shoe

v. Purcell, where the girlfriend of the Defendant consented to the search of a backpack that officers searched. 526 F. 3d 953 (6th Cir. 2008). The backpack consisted solely of mens clothing, which created a blatant ambiguity in the consent given by the girlfriend, and gave the reasonable officers a reason to suspect that the consent was invalid. U.S. v. Taylor, 600 F.3d 678, 684 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court in U.S. v. Taylor reasoned that, due to three factors, the cohabitant of the residence did not have actual authority to consent to the search of the closed shoe box. Id. at 683. Because the shoebox only contained Taylor’s belongings, and Taylor had exclusive control over the shoe box, and there is no indication that the cohabitant had permission to open the shoe box, she did not have the authority to consent to a search. Id. at 678. Because there is no indication that Mrs. Fallsbauer had the permission of David to open the shoebox that contained only his effects, and David had exclusive control over the shoebox, this Court should hold as it did in U.S. v. Taylor that the cohabitant did not have the apparent authority to consent to the search of the closed