State v. Bartram

• Decision Date: 24 June 1996
• Citation: 925 S.W.2d 227
• Parties: STATE of Tennessee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles William BARTRAM, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 227

925 S.W.2d 227

STATE of Tennessee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles William BARTRAM, Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville.

June 24, 1996.

Charles Burson, Attorney General & Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, Nashville, Dent Morris, Assistant District Attorney, Springfield, for appellant.

Michael R. Jones, Public Defender, Clarksville, for appellee.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

We granted this appeal to re-examine this Court's adoption of the so-called "angry wife" exception to the rule that a warrantless search and seizure is presumed unreasonable unless there is a valid consent to the search. Fifty years ago, in Kelley v. State ¹, this Court viewed the marital relationship as an agency relationship between the husband and wife and, therefore, reasoned that the consent of the wife would bind the husband unless the consenting wife's actions were hostile and adverse to her husband's interest.

The trial court, relying on the Kelley precedent, suppressed the evidence obtained in a warrantless search and dismissed this case because consent to the search was given by an angry wife. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

After careful consideration, we have determined that Kelley should be overruled as there is no longer a valid reason for the rule in either law or logic. We adopt instead the modern rule that the consent to a search of one who possesses common authority over premises is valid against the absent nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.

Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment affirming the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court.

BACKGROUND

Jo Marie Bartram called the police as a result of a domestic dispute between herself and her husband, Charles Bartram. The police responded and during the call to the Bartram residence, one of the officers seized a plastic bag of marijuana from the refrigerator. As a result, Charles Bartram was indicted on two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. He moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing that it was illegally seized because it was a warrantless search without consent in violation of the Tennessee and United States Constitutions.

At the hearing on Bartram's motion to suppress, the evidence was disputed. The police officer testified he was standing in the living room when Jo Marie Bartram walked into the kitchen, opened the door to the refrigerator, pulled out a plastic bag, and said, "Here, this is what he's been doing." Jo Marie Bartram then, according to the officer, gave him the plastic bag containing marijuana.

Jo Marie Bartram, however, told a different story. While she admitted opening the refrigerator door, she claims she pointed to a can of beer and said, "here is his problem." According to Jo Marie Bartram, the officer then walked over, opened the door to the side-by-side freezer compartment, noticed the bag of marijuana, and seized it.

After hearing the testimony of the officer and Mrs. Bartram, the trial judge by implication credited the officer's testimony and granted the defendant's motion to suppress "based upon Kelley v. State." There, this Court held that an angry wife's consent to a search is not effective to waive her husband's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and render admissible evidence seized in the search.

Since the evidence suppressed by the trial court was the only evidence against the defendant, Charles Bartram, the trial court dismissed the case. The State appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's suppression decision and dismissal, stating, "[u]ntil such time as Kelley is overruled, the case constitutes the law of this State, binding upon this Court and the trial courts."

Thereafter, we granted the State permission to appeal, and for the reasons articulated below, we now overrule Kelley v. State.

ANGRY WIFE EXCEPTION

The State, in this appeal, argues that the rule announced in Kelley is completely anachronistic and without basis in law or policy and should be overruled. On the other hand, Bartram argues that the exception is based on public policy considerations and aimed at preserving family harmony, and as such, should be re-affirmed.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides:

Unreasonable searches and seizures. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to the searched and the person or things to be seized.

Likewise, Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of Tennessee guarantees that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. Accordingly, both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution prohibit "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The State may not invade this personal constitutional right of the individual citizen except under the most exigent circumstances.

This broad protection from unreasonable search and seizure originated with the ancient concept that a man's home is his castle. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, in a speech on the floor of the English House of Commons in 1763, eloquently articulated the individual liberty protected:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

United States v. Nelson, 459 F.2d 884, 885 (1972).

A warrantless search and seizure, therefore, is presumed unreasonable unless it falls into one of the narrowly defined exceptions or exigent circumstances, to the warrant requirement. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 (1971). The mere existence of these circumstances does not necessarily validate a warrantless search. As pointed out in Nelson, supra, exceptions are "jealously and carefully drawn." There must be a showing by those asserting the exception that the exigencies of the situation made the search imperative. The burden is on those seeking the exception to show the need. It is, of course, well settled that one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search conducted pursuant to consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993). ² The sufficiency and validity of consent depends largely upon the facts and circumstances presented by each particular case. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d at 221.

In Kelley, this Court considered whether an "angry wife's" consent to search was valid so as to render evidence seized in the search admissible against her husband in a criminal prosecution. Kelley's wife called police to the couple's home to arrest Kelley for beating her. When the officers arrived, Kelley was gone. His wife, however, escorted the officers inside the premises and showed them several jars of whiskey, which she said belonged to her husband. The officers seized the whiskey, and a as a result, Kelley was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquors. He appealed, and this Court reversed the conviction, holding that the whiskey was obtained by reason of an unlawful and illegal search and seizure. The Kelley court's analysis follows:

[T]he wife was angry at her husband, was exceedingly hostile in her attitude toward him, had called the officers to arrest him and then, when the officers appeared, did her utmost to get the plaintiff in error into trouble....

We are of the opinion that in such circumstances the wife had no right to waive her husband's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures any more than any other person would have had. Her whole attitude was contrary to his interests, and it could not be said that she was acting in any sense in the family interest with any authority to waive rights which might otherwise properly arise out of the relationship.

Kelley, 184 Tenn. at 146, 197 S.W.2d at 546.

At the time of this Court's decision in Kelley, the question of third party consent, including spousal consent, was analyzed by some courts with reference to agency principles. 3 La Fave, Search and Seizure, § 8.4(a), p. 759 (3d ed.1996). Those courts were of the view that the marital relationship itself gave...