home. However, Defendants cite no case (and this court is aware of none) indicating that a capias warrant gives the government the right to enter the arrestee’s home for any other purposes than to effect the arrest. Whatever he may have thought about his authority to enter the home and effect an arrest, the law clearly prohibited Defendant Bartels from conducting a warrantless search. Accordingly, he does not enjoy the protections of qualified immunity with respect to Count 1. With respect to the second search (Count 3), Defendants argue that an individual plausibly identifying himself as Plaintiffs brother-in-law consented to the search, which was therefore lawful under the “apparent authority” rationale. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 186, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (<HOLDING>) (citing United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S.
holding that there is no violation of the fourth amendment when the government reasonably believed that the individual giving consent to the search had authority to do so holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept holding search not to violate fourth amendment where officers belief that apparent landlord had the power to consent and that he had not revoked that consent was reasonable emphasis added holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime holding cotenants consent to search valid where rodriguez who was asleep inside the house was not asked for his consent if police reasonably believed the consenter possessed common authority over the premises