## Facts

- A juvenile and his mother lived in a private room at a transitional family shelter providing temporary housing to homeless families.
- The family had keys to the room; shelter staff retained a master key and could enter for inspections, rule compliance checks, maintenance, and repairs; weapons were prohibited by shelter rules.
- After receiving a report that the juvenile allegedly possessed a gun, the shelter director contacted police and signed a consent form for officers to search the family’s room.
- Police entered and searched without a warrant and without any asserted exigency, finding a loaded handgun in a shoebox.
- The juvenile was arrested and then made an unprompted inculpatory statement outside the room shortly after the seizure.

## Issues

1. Whether a resident of a transitional family shelter has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shelter room such that art. 14 applies.
2. Whether the shelter director had actual authority to consent to a warrantless police search of the room for contraband or evidence.
3. Whether the director had apparent authority to consent, and whether police reliance can rest on a mistake of law rather than a reasonable mistake of fact.
4. If the entry was unlawful, whether the gun and the juvenile’s post-arrest statement must be suppressed as fruits of the unlawful search.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Juvenile Court order suppressing the gun and the juvenile’s statement.
- The court held the juvenile had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shelter room, which functioned as his home.
- The court held the director lacked actual authority because she was not a co-occupant with shared access, and the shelter rules did not authorize her to admit police to search for contraband or evidence.
- The court held the director also lacked apparent authority because the officers’ belief in her authority rested on a mistake of law about the scope of authority under the shelter rules, not a reasonable mistake of fact.
- Because the warrantless entry violated art. 14, both the gun and the inculpatory statement made immediately after arrest were suppressed.

## Legal Principles

- A shelter room used as living quarters by a family can constitute a “home” for art. 14 purposes, even if occupancy is temporary and subject to institutional rules and staff entry for limited administrative purposes.
- Third-party consent requires common authority: a consenting person must have shared use and joint access or control for most purposes, not merely supervisory or administrative access.
- Apparent-authority consent is recognized under art. 14 only where police, after diligent inquiry, reasonably but mistakenly believe (as a matter of fact) that the consenting person has common authority.
- Apparent authority cannot validate a warrantless home search when police reliance is based on a mistake of law about the scope of a third party’s authority.
- Evidence seized during an unconstitutional entry and closely connected statements following arrest may be suppressed as fruits of the unlawful search.

## Conclusion

The court treated a transitional shelter room as a protected home under art. 14 and ruled that shelter staff’s limited administrative access did not confer authority to consent to a police evidentiary search; because officers relied on an incorrect legal view of the director’s authority, the search was unconstitutional and both the firearm and the juvenile’s ensuing statement were suppressed.


Commonwealth v. Porter P., 923 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. 2010)