## Facts

- Federal agents investigated suspected child-pornography website access tied to subscriber records listing “Ray Andrus” at a Kansas residential address, using a credit card and an email address associated with his name.
- Records indicated Ray Andrus lived at the address with his father, Dr. Bailey Andrus, who owned and lived in the home.
- Agents went to the home without a warrant while Ray was absent, informed Dr. Andrus they were investigating child pornography, and requested consent to search the home and any computers.
- Dr. Andrus signed a written consent form authorizing a search of the premises, including computers; the district court found the consent voluntary.
- Dr. Andrus led agents to Ray’s bedroom, where Ray (an adult) lived; a computer in the room was in plain view.
- Dr. Andrus stayed during the search and did not limit consent or state the computer was exclusively Ray’s, inaccessible to him, or password-protected.
- Agents used EnCase forensic software to copy and search the hard drive, bypassing normal operating-system access controls; the search revealed images and directories indicating child pornography.
- Ray Andrus was indicted for possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), moved to suppress the computer evidence, lost, entered a conditional guilty plea, and appealed the suppression ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether Dr. Bailey Andrus had apparent authority under the Fourth Amendment to consent to a warrantless search of his adult son’s computer located in the son’s bedroom within the father’s home.
2. Whether the circumstances required officers to ask clarifying questions (e.g., about ownership, exclusive use, or password protection) before relying on the father’s consent to search the computer.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and affirmed the conviction.
- The court held it was objectively reasonable for agents to believe Dr. Andrus had authority to consent to the search of the computer.
- The court held officers had no constitutional duty to inquire further absent circumstances making the consenting party’s authority ambiguous.
- The court evaluated apparent authority based on the facts known to officers at the time they proceeded with the search, not on information potentially revealed by the forensic examination.
- A dissent would have required further inquiry into actual access (including password knowledge) before permitting a third-party-consent search of a computer using forensic tools.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless search based on third-party consent is valid when officers reasonably believe the consenting person has authority over the place or item searched (apparent authority), even if that belief is mistaken.
- Apparent authority is assessed under an objective reasonableness standard based on circumstances known to officers at the time of consent and search.
- Officers must make further inquiry into authority only when the surrounding circumstances present ambiguity about the consenting party’s access or control.
- A homeowner’s consent may support apparent authority over items located within the home when the items are in plain view and there are no indications of exclusive control by another occupant.
- An appellate court reviews factual findings for clear error and the ultimate Fourth Amendment determination de novo.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the warrantless computer search because the father’s written consent, his ownership and access to the home, and the absence of signs of exclusive computer control made officers’ reliance on his apparent authority reasonable, without a required duty to ask additional questions about passwords or exclusive use.


United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711 (10th Cir. 2007)