State v. Beylund

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that actual authority “can be proven by facts established after the search”
• reasoning that “the consenting person’s relationship to the premises or items to be searched can be proven by facts established after the search”
• “[D]efendant assumed the risk that Wicker would permit others to have access to his property by renting the premises to Wicker.”
• We defer to the trial court's express and implicit findings of fact, but whether those facts establish authority to consent to search is a legal question.
• whether person has actual authority to consent is ultimately a question of law
• “Although defendant correctly points out that access to or use of one area of property does not necessarily imply authority to consent to a search of all portions of the premises, [the third party] testified that he had full access to the shop basement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).