Business Law 16th Edition by Jane Mallor,James Barnes ,Arlen Langvardt,Jamie Darin Prenkert,Martin McCrory

تمرين 2

Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building. After hearing screams coming from one of the apartments, the officers knocked on the apartment door. It was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, eventual defendant WF came to the door and objected. Suspecting that WF had battered Rojas, the officers removed WF from the apartment and arrested him. WF was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and was taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojas's consent, searched the premises. During the search, he found several items linking WF to the robbery. WF moved to suppress that evidence, arguing that his earlier objection to a protective sweep should have the effect of overriding Rojas's later consent to a search of the apartment, that the search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence obtained in the search should be ruled inadmissible. The trial court denied WF's motion. After being convicted, WF appealed and renewed his arguments about the search and the evidence. Was WF correct in his argument that given his earlier objection, the search of the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment?