In Illinois v. Rodriquez, why was the motion to suppress evidence granted?

• A. Gail Fisher had moved out and lacked common authority
• B. The officers did not identify themselves properly
• C. The drugs were not in plain view
• D. The search was conducted without a warrant

Answer: (A)

In the case of Illinois v. Rodriquez, the motion to suppress evidence was granted primarily because the individual who had consented to the search, Gail Fisher, did not have common authority over the premises at the time of the search. The Supreme Court held that for a search based on consent to be valid, the person giving consent must have the proper authority to do so. In this specific situation, it was determined that Fisher had moved out of the apartment and therefore lacked the requisite authority to consent to the search. Consequently, since the consent was invalid, any evidence gathered during the search was deemed inadmissible in court, leading to the motion to suppress the evidence being granted. This ruling underscores the legal principle that consent to search must be given by someone who has actual or apparent authority over the property in question.