## Facts

- Staff Sergeant Weston and a female coworker shared a workplace bathroom at a Marine Corps law center.
- The coworker found an electric razor in the bathroom that concealed a camera positioned to record her while using the bathroom and changing.
- Military police contacted Weston and brought him to the Provost Marshal’s Office (PMO) for questioning; his wife accompanied them but was separated from him upon arrival.
- Weston received Article 31(b) warnings, invoked counsel, and refused consent to search the marital residence.
- Investigators sought consent from Mrs. Weston without telling her of Weston’s refusal; after being told she could refuse, she signed a written consent form and accompanied investigators to the home.
- During the consent search, investigators seized Weston’s computer; forensic review revealed nonconsensual images of the coworker in the shared bathroom and images from inside her home.
- At a general court-martial, the military judge denied Weston’s motion to suppress the computer evidence; Weston was convicted of housebreaking (Article 130) and invasion of privacy (Article 134).

## Issues

1. Whether a co-occupant’s voluntary consent makes a home search reasonable when the other co-occupant previously refused consent but was not present at the premises during the search.
2. Whether the search was invalid because investigators allegedly kept Weston away from the home to avoid his objection, within the meaning of the co-occupant objection rule.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the lower court and upheld the denial of the suppression motion.
- The court held the search reasonable based on Mrs. Weston’s voluntary consent and common authority over the residence.
- The court concluded the co-occupant objection rule did not apply because Weston was not physically present at the residence when consent was given and the search occurred.
- The court found the record did not establish that investigators removed or kept Weston away from the home to nullify his objection.
- Because the search was lawful, seizure and examination of the computer and the resulting images were admissible, and the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A search of shared premises is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when voluntary consent is obtained from a person with common authority over the premises.
- A co-occupant’s express refusal bars reliance on another occupant’s consent only when the objector is physically present and objecting at the time officers seek entry.
- A prior refusal made while the objector is away from the premises does not, by itself, eliminate a co-occupant’s authority to consent.
- A consent search may be invalid if law enforcement removes or keeps the objector away for the purpose of avoiding an on-scene objection; absent proof of that purpose, consent remains effective.
- Voluntariness of third-party consent is assessed from the totality of the circumstances, including advisement of the right to refuse and the absence of coercion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a warrantless search of a marital home based on the wife’s voluntary consent, holding that the husband’s earlier refusal at a different location did not control because he was not physically present at the home when the search occurred and there was no showing that investigators kept him away to evade his objection.


United States v. Weston, 67 M.J. 390 (C.A.A.F. 2009)