Two hotel room occupants. One gives "consent" to officer to enter room. (Consent is arguable.) Can the other raise the involuntariness of the other's consent in his own motion to suppress?

The defendant can always say HE didn't consent, and you will have to prove by clear and convincing evidence there WAS consent to search, from someone authorized to give it. The standing issue really doesn't go to the issue of who gave consent, it goes to his reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. Was he a registered guest? If not, he may have problems proving standing. Don't stipulate to standing on his privacy rights. Make him prove that. If he does have standing, then you are going to have to prove actual consent. Did the "nonconsenting" defendant object at the time? If not, he can't bitch if the other person gave consent. May not be able to complain, anyway, but certainly can't complain about lack of consent if he kept his mouth shut at the time.

i know he has standing to challenge the entry into the hotel room.

my question is this -- does he even have the right to claim the consent given by another was involuntary?

so how would this play out... he proves his standing. my officer gets on the stand and says he had consent. defendant gets on the stand and said, yeah--she said you can come in but only after you forced her to... does he have the right to even go there? it wasn't his consent.

sorry--i just can't seem to digest this one.

If a defendant has standing to challenge a warrantless search, he has standing to challenge any exception to the warrant requirement, like consent. I don't think you're gonna find a case that deals with this argument specifically, because it seems so obvious that any third part consent given must be voluntary. See US v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 169 (1974) (voluntary consent of third party to search of property under joint control is valid against defendant).

OK--maybe I'm just over thinking this. I guess it makes sense that if we say we can use voluntary consent against the third party, they can use involuntary consent to challenge...

Thanks for the answers.

Yeah, Jimbeaux - I agree, and I think I was inartful in my response. Sorry Dee

Not only does he have standing, he has a 2006 Supreme Court ruling to back him up.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph

TXLaw - If the defendant wasn't there at the time of consent, then it can be distinguished. It wasn't clear to me that he was there and refused consent at the time. If so, then I agree the case applies.