Colorado Supreme Court People v. Webb 14SA37

Decision here.

   Webb's adult son lived with her while he was on parole.  During a home visit from the parole officer and a cop, spoons with meth residue were found under his bed and he was determined to be under the influence of meth (as was a guest, who was in possession of syringes that tested positive for meth).  So the cops seized the paraphernalia and then got a warrant to search the house for more.

   At the beginning of the next search, they told Webb that she could leave if they wanted.  She chose to leave, and wanted to take her purse with her.  An officer went into her unlocked bedroom with her to retrieve the purse, and told her they were going to have to search it before she left with it.  A search of the purse revealed straws with meth residue.  More meth paraphernalia (with residue) was found elsewhere in her room.

   Webb was charged with possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.  She moved to suppress the evidence found in her bedroom.  The trial court accepted that the search of the bedroom was reasonable, but held that because she had a heightened expectation of privacy in her purse the search of the purse was unreasonable.  The People filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The Colorado Supreme Court held that the search of the purse was reasonable, but they used a couple of different rationales to get there.  On one hand, they pointed out that once a warrant has been obtained, the scope of a search is defined by the scope of the warrant rather than by any person's expectation of privacy.

   The court also discussed the actual parameters of a search of a house pursuant to a warrant (this is the part that threw me, I thought the other explanation was much easier to grasp).  Basically, if the police have a warrant for a house then they can search any areas of the house which the suspect (defined as the person whose actions gave rise to the probable cause justifying the search) has the ability to access.  Since Webb's bedroom was not locked, her son would have had the ability to access it (to include her purse).  And since the purse was capable of hiding the contraband named in the warrant, the search of the purse was valid.

   The suppression order was reversed and the case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.