§ 5.4.4 Scope of the Search
1. General Rule. “The standard for determining the scope of a suspect’s consent is one of objective reasonableness, which is ‘what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?’” State v. Swanson, 172 Ariz. 579, 838 P.2d 1340 (App. 1992) (Div. 1) (finding that officers exceeded scope of motorist’s consent in removing rear door panel to search for narcotics), quoting Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (when driver gave consent to search car, officer properly looked in closed container ? in this case, a paper bag on floor). See also State v. Mitcham, 1 CA-CR 23-0014, 2023 WL 5354942 (App. Aug. 22, 2023) (Div. 1) (officers exceeded the scope of defendant’s consent when they used his blood taken with his consent in an earlier DUI case to create DNA profile). The officer must honor any narrowing or withdrawal of consent but “[i]f a person responds with a consent which is general and unqualified, then ordinarily the police may conduct a general search of the place.” State v. McKinney, 185 Ariz. 567, 917 P.2d 1214 (1996) (suspect’s consent to search of bedroom included dresser drawers), superceding by statute on other grounds recognized, State v. Martinez, 196 Ariz. 451, 999 P.2d 795 (2000).
2. Houses. See State v. McKinney, supra, and cases in § 5.4, “Consent.”
Weapon ? When officers see a weapon in a house, they may temporarily seize the weapon because of legitimate safety concerns. See State v. Rodriguez, 205 Ariz. 392, 71 P.3d 919 (App. 2003) (Div. 2) (mother consented to search of home for daughter who had absconded; officers saw butt of shotgun poking out from under mattress; officers were entitled to lift mattress and seize weapon based on “legitimate safety concerns,” even though they lacked probable cause to believe the gun was illegal or defendant was prohibited possessor); see also State v. Cotten, 879 P.2d 971, 979-80 (Wash. App. 1994) (officers’ seizure of shotgun in house during consensual search for bombing evidence, although beyond scope of consent, was reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes, even though “it was not immediately apparent to the FBI agents that the shotgun was evidence of any crime”) (as cited in Rodriguez, 205 Ariz. at 403 n. 8, 71 P.3d at 930 n. 8).
3. Vehicles. See also § 5.4.3, discussing when drivers and passengers may consent to the search of a vehicle. See also Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991) (unqualified consent to...
