Officers get called to a house for a noise complaint- 50 juveniles at a house party.

They arrive and see juveniles hopping the back fence.

Eventually, the "cool mom" comes out of the house. Minors spill out slowly, intoxicated.

"Cool mom" does not give permission for police to enter.

Husband and drunk 17 yr old son DO give permission.

Police enter the home and find a highly intoxicated teen girl on a bed with a 20 yr old male who is "watching over her.

they see some shot glasses in the kitchen and on the back porch.

They don't take any pictures or seize any of it.

Can I get in what they saw?

Do I argue that the intoxicated minors are exigent circumstances?

What's the charge?

Dad gave consent to enter, and I'm assuming he lives there, too, then officers made a legal entry & what they see is fair game. (Unless the officers went fishing for a yes - asking Mom and she says no, then asking Dad. As I recall, there is a case out there that says that is not ok.) The consent to enter doesn't get them in the closets and drawers, etc. unless Dad also consented to a search. We need more details about what exactly the officers saw and did that resulted in a charge.

quote:

Originally posted by MDK27:
What's the charge?

Furnishing Alcohol to a minor.

quote:

Originally posted by MDK27:
What's the charge?

Wife doesn't answer the door, so they call him to find out if they can enter. He says yes.

Most of the evidence for the charge is on the front lawn as minors pour out.

Officers go inside, they don't collect anything or take pictures. They not there are shot glasses in the kitchen and on the back patio. Plus the drunk minor on the bed.

Based on those facts, Dad's consent is valid. No need for warrant or exigency. Even if a judge were to suppress what they saw inside, they can still testify about what they saw in the yard.

Might want to check out Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). Here's a link.

Randolph dealt with the opposite situation though. There the officers had consent from one occupant not on the premises, but then another person on the premises disputed that consent. There is some discussion, however, of how disputed permission no more claim to reasonableness to enter than entry without consent.

I agree though that it looks like most of your evidence comes from observations outside of the residence.

Does Mom actually refuse consent to enter? It sounded like it from your original post, but from your later update it sounds like she just didn't answer the door. If she refused consent, then Georgia v. Randolph will come into play and Dad's consent won't be valid in light of her refusal. But if she didn't actually refuse consent, then Dad's consent is valid.

She does refuse to let officers in.

Dad ended up not showing up for the hearing... and son said he let police in under threat of arrest.

It turned out there were a lot of problems with the case- that we discovered the afternoon after picking a jury.

In the end, because of the number of problems with our juvenile witnesses, police officers, and the suppression of evidence found in the house, we ended up dismissing it.

A kid with one of the "cool" moms. Lucky no one got hurt, or an innocent person killed on the highway. I say knowingly or intentionally furnishing alcohol to a minor (at least under the age of 18) should be a third degree felony. Too many kids dying from alcohol poisoning, highway wrecks, and just plain drunk killings.

Couldn't agree more!

quote:

Originally posted by MDK27:
A kid with one of the "cool" moms. Lucky no one got hurt, or an innocent person killed on the highway. I say knowingly or intentionally furnishing alcohol to a minor (at least under the age of 18) should be a third degree felony. Too many kids dying from alcohol poisoning, highway wrecks, and just plain drunk killings.