U.S. v. Terry

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment under circumstances, where: (1) defendant was arrested outside of his home and taken to police station; and (2) police subsequently knocked on door of defendant’s home and sleepy-eyed woman in bathrobe answered door and eventually consented to search of defendant’s home. At time of search, it was unreasonable for police to assume that said women in bathrobe had either actual or apparent authority to consent to said search of defendant’s home, since: (1) at time of search, police were unaware as to how said woman was related to defendant or how long said woman had resided at defendant’s home; and (2) fact that said woman appeared in bathrobe at door of defendant’s home was insufficient by itself to establish apparent authority to search defendant’s home. Fact that police became aware after search that woman was mother to defendant’s child did not require different result. Dist. Ct. did not err, though, in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements given to police after his arrest, even though defendant had refused to sign Miranda warning form, where record showed that defendant’s willingness to speak to police after he refused to sign Miranda form was course of conduct indicating waiver of Miranda rights, given his education and familiarity with criminal justice system.