## Facts

- Freddie Ray Davis was on probation under Georgia’s First Offender Act for a prior drug-possession conviction.
- Davis’s 10-year-old stepson, Darrin, was routinely left home alone after school, had a key, and was required to call his mother upon arriving home.
- During the time he was alone, Darrin was not allowed to invite anyone into the house or play outside; his mother instructed him to call 911 if he needed help.
- On January 28, 1991, Darrin found suspected drugs in his parents’ bedroom and called 911, reporting drugs in the house and stating he wanted to get his mother and stepfather help.
- A sheriff’s deputy arrived; Darrin identified the house, admitted the deputy, and led her to the parents’ bedroom, where he showed white powder and drug paraphernalia and marijuana and rolling papers.
- The deputy seized the items and waited with Darrin for his mother to return; the mother later consented to a search of her handbag, which contained additional drugs, and she was arrested.
- Davis and the mother refused to consent to a full search of the home; the State relied on the bedroom evidence already seized.
- The trial court denied Davis’s motion to suppress, found a probation violation, and revoked his first-offender status; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, a 10-year-old child had “common authority” to give valid third-party consent for police to enter the home and seize drugs from the parents’ bedroom without a warrant.

## Decision

- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held the child’s consent was not valid third-party consent on these facts.
- Because no other exception justified the warrantless entry and seizure, the evidence should have been suppressed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Third-party consent to a warrantless search is valid only when the consenting person has common authority over the premises or area searched, meaning joint access or control for most purposes.
- A minor’s routine presence in a home and possession of a key, without more, does not establish common authority to admit police, especially where parents have expressly restricted the child from inviting others inside.
- In assessing apparent or actual authority, courts consider the objective scope of the child’s permitted use and control of the premises, including parental limitations and the child’s age.
- Consent doctrine cannot be expanded by treating a child subject to tight household restrictions like an adult co-occupant with recognized joint control.

## Conclusion

The court held that a 10-year-old who was expressly forbidden from inviting anyone into the home lacked common authority to consent to police entry and seizure from his parents’ bedroom; the warrantless search was unconstitutional and the suppression ruling was reversed.


Davis v. State, 422 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. 1992)