Two hours after an arrest, a second LEO asks a tenant for consent to search; the tenant consents, and the search yields evidence of a crime. The evidence is admissible because there were exigent circumstances.

Two hours after an arrest, a second LEO asks a tenant for consent to search; the tenant consents, and the search yields evidence of a crime. The evidence is admissible because there were exigent circumstances.

• A. Admissible because the consent was given by the tenant.
• B. Admissible since there were exigent circumstances.
• C. Admissible only with a search warrant.
• D. Inadmissible due to late consent.

Answer: (B)

Consent by someone with the authority to permit a search in the dwelling makes a warrantless search lawful. A tenant generally has the authority to consent to searches of their dwelling, so when the officer asked two hours after the arrest and the tenant voluntarily agreed, that consent authorizes the search and any evidence found is admissible—as long as the consent was voluntary and not coerced. Exigent circumstances can provide a separate basis for warrantless searches, but they aren’t required when valid consent is given. The timing doesn’t negate the validity of the tenant’s consent, so the evidence is admissible for that reason.

Consent by someone with the authority to permit a search in the dwelling makes a warrantless search lawful. A tenant generally has the authority to consent to searches of their dwelling, so when the officer asked two hours after the arrest and the tenant voluntarily agreed, that consent authorizes the search and any evidence found is admissible—as long as the consent was voluntary and not coerced. Exigent circumstances can provide a separate basis for warrantless searches, but they aren’t required when valid consent is given. The timing doesn’t negate the validity of the tenant’s consent, so the evidence is admissible for that reason.