Premium
Third‐Party Consent Searches: Legal vs. Social Perceptions of “Common Authority” 1
Author(s) -
Kagehiro Dorothy K.,
Taylor Ralph B.
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01206.x
Subject(s) - situational ethics , interpretation (philosophy) , social psychology , psychology , primary authority , perception , common law , power (physics) , law , political science , legal research , physics , quantum mechanics , neuroscience , computer science , programming language
We investigate the degree of correspondence between legal concepts underpinning third‐party consent searches (a co‐resident permits police search of shared living space and belongings) and laypersons' sociocultural expectations. In accord with the legal concepts, we hypothesized that laypersons would be able to distinguish between authority over (1) exclusive‐use vs. common‐use areas, and (2) personal effects in exclusive‐use vs. common‐use areas. But, we also expected that (3) the interpretation of “common authority” would be influenced by the presence vs. absence of the co‐resident, and (4) the type of intruder (social, commercial, civil authority, or criminal justice authority) would influence responses to requests for entry. These hypotheses were tested using a fully between‐subjects, factorial design ( N = 160). Results supported our first three hypotheses. Subjects understood the concept of a warrantless search and distinguished between “exclusive use” areas and “common authority” areas at the level of rooms within the shared residence. Subjects' interpretation of “common authority” for third‐party consent purposes was influenced by physical presence of the co‐resident. If the co‐resident was absent, “common authority” was interpreted as independent consent power. There was no consensual interpretation of “common authority” when the co‐resident was present and protested the proposed search. Results suggest situational dependence of lay understandings of “common authority” over jointly used areas.