State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199
For Kelley: Gregory Bates
¶13 Kelley also argues that the search violated the scope of consent. He contends that an accelerant and phone handset could not have been found under his bed and therefore that place should not have been searched. We disagree. …
¶14 Here, the police were searching for a telephone handset and an accelerant. Certainly, either object could be easily hidden beneath a bed. Moreover, Kelley did not limit the scope of his consent––rather, he authorized a general consent to search the entire apartment. He could have limited the scope of the consent immediately or at any time thereafter. He could have said, you can look everywhere except under the bed. The consent to search here was unqualified. Kelley was present when Quist was searching in the bedroom and discovered the photos under the bed. He made no objection. The failure to object further supports our conclusion that the detective did not exceed the scope of the consent when he searched under the bed.