We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Parental Consent

Your investigation reveals that a child at middle school in your beat is using the computer in his room to harass a girl in his seventh grade class. When you get to the home, the parents are completely cooperative and are more than willing to allow you to examine the computer and take it for forensic examination. You respond as every other officer I have taught responds, “Of COURSE a parent can consent to a search of their kid’s room!” But is it true?


You have to fall back on what you know about apparent authority. You can get valid consent to search from someone who has the right to access and control the area or thing you seek to search. The general rule is that either parent may give consent to the search of property or a bedroom of their child who lives in their home unless that child has exclusive control over the area. It is clear that there are no areas that are under the exclusive control of a young child, but that changes as the child gets older.


When the child is a minor, the parent can give consent. It is the exceedingly rare case where the parent has given up access or control of an area of their home. The Supreme Court noted that the parent has the ability to give consent even when the child objects. (Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 547 U.S. 103.) But does the answer change when the object to be searched is the computer?


Let’s change the hypothetical for a moment and consider the case of the older or adult child living in their parent’s home.

If you have a case with an older or adult child, the case for apparent authority is less clear. Remember, apparent authority presumes that the parents have the right to access and control the area they are giving consent to search. In the case of the older child or adult child you have to ask questions before you start searching.

You need to ask about the living relationship between the parent and child. If the situation resembles that of a landlord-tenant situation or a hotel/motel type of arrangement you must proceed as if you were dealing with that type of situation. As you know, a landlord cannot give consent to search her rental property in control of a renter. If the parent, however, has accessed the room to clean it, or deposit laundry or otherwise can enter the area with impunity, that parent can give consent to search. (People v. Daniels (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 36.)



The computer in our initial example becomes more problematic because we must treat the computer as a closed container. Even though mom may come in the room to clean or deposit laundry; that does not give her the ability to consent to a search of a closed container. The Daniels court went on to say that the mother’s authority over the room did not extend to a closed container in the room she had never accessed and therefore did not control. Reading Georgia v. Randolph, it seems as though a parent cannot give consent over the objection of their adult child if that child is present.


Using our initial question of a middle school child and his computer or any closed container of an adult child as an example, we have a big problem. Does the parent have authority to give consent to search?

I can foresee a case where a court might rule that a minor as young as middle school has the exclusive right to access and control a computer or a portion of a hard-drive. In any case, with a computer or closed container of a minor you must ask some follow up questions before determining that mom has the ability to give you consent to search. Do you have access to the computer? Have you ever used the computer? Are there areas on the hard-drive that are password protected? Do you have the password? Have you ever accessed the password protected files or partitions? If the answers to these questions lead you to believe that the adult cannot access areas of the computer, you must go about getting authority to search that computer another way.

Chuck Gillingham is a veteran prosecutor and regular instructor for the California District Attorney’s Association and the Federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Chuck also teaches Multidisciplinary Child Interviewing for Third Degree Communications, Inc.

  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police