## Facts

- Christopher Eugene Walker, a 19-year-old Santa Clara University student, was charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11359).
- A university safety officer observed Walker smoking marijuana outside his dormitory.
- Walker invited the safety officer into his dorm room, unlocked the door, and allowed entry.
- Inside the room, the safety officer observed marijuana and related items, including a digital scale and $1,800 in cash.
- The safety officer contacted city police and reported the discovery.
- Police officers came to the dorm room and asked whether the safety officer had consent to search.
- The safety officer told police he had consent and also asserted that consent was unnecessary due to a housing contract permitting university officials to enter dorm rooms without notice or student consent.
- Without a warrant, police entered the dorm room and seized the contraband.
- Walker moved to suppress the evidence under Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5; the trial court granted the motion.
- The prosecution filed a statutory writ petition challenging the suppression order.

## Issues

1. Whether a university safety officer had actual authority to consent to police entry and search of a student’s dorm room based on his role and the housing contract.
2. Whether the warrantless entry was reasonable under an apparent-authority theory.
3. Whether the seized items were admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine despite any Fourth Amendment violation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the university safety officer did not have actual authority to consent to a police search of the dorm room.
- The court declined to decide whether police reasonably relied on the safety officer’s apparent authority.
- The court held suppression was improper because the contraband would inevitably have been discovered through lawful means.
- The court granted writ relief directing the trial court to vacate its suppression order and proceed consistently with the appellate ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Third-party consent requires common authority or a sufficient relationship to the premises; an institutional right of entry for administrative purposes does not, by itself, create actual authority to consent to a law-enforcement search of a student’s dorm room.
- Apparent authority may validate a search when officers reasonably, though mistakenly, believe a third party can consent; a court may bypass this question if another ground disposes of suppression.
- Under inevitable discovery, evidence is admissible if the prosecution proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been discovered through lawful procedures independent of the challenged conduct.

## Conclusion

A university safety officer’s contractual or institutional access to dorm rooms did not give actual authority to consent to a warrantless police search, but the evidence was nonetheless admissible because it would have been discovered through lawful means under the inevitable discovery doctrine.


People v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 1183, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)