MBE Rules · Criminal Procedure
Warrant exception — consent
The rule
Voluntary consent (totality of circumstances) authorizes search. Third party with actual or apparent common authority may consent for shared spaces. A present, objecting co-occupant blocks consent for shared areas (Randolph); their later absence allows consent by remaining occupant (Fernandez).
In plain English
Police can search without a warrant if someone with authority over the space agrees. If two people share a space and one says no, the search can't happen unless that person leaves.
Worked example
Officer A asks to search a shared apartment. The defendant, present, says no, but the co-occupant says yes. Officer A can't search. Later, the defendant leaves, and the co-occupant consents again. Now, Officer A can search.
Memory hook
Consent Clears the Way: Voluntary 'yes' bypasses warrants. Even a roommate can say it for shared spaces, unless another says 'no' right there.
The trap
Students think: Any co-occupant can always consent. Wrong, because an objecting co-occupant present blocks consent. The actual test is the objector must be absent for consent to be valid.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: two roommates, one consents, one objects. Question: valid search? Trap: assuming consent always valid. If the objector is present, consent is invalid; if absent, consent is valid (Fernandez).
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.