Final answer:
The admissibility of seized items as evidence when a person with no actual authority has granted permission to search depends on whether the deputy had a reasonable belief in the authority, and other factors that affect the reasonableness of the search. The court might invoke the 'good faith' exception or the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, making it highly circumstance-dependent.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a deputy believes he has been given permission to conduct a search by a person with apparent authority, but in fact, they have no such authority, the question of whether the seized items can still be used as evidence in court falls under specific legal precedents. This scenario may invoke the 'good faith' exception, where the courts have allowed evidence obtained without the proper legal procedures in certain circumstances.
If the deputy acted on a reasonable belief that consent was given by a person with apparent authority, the evidence might still be admissible. However, this depends on the totality of the circumstances, and if the search is deemed unreasonable, the exclusionary rule would likely render the evidence inadmissible.
Therefore, if the deputy had a reasonable belief that the person giving consent had the authority to do so, and other factors do not render the search unreasonable, the items may be used in court. However, if the belief in authority was not reasonable or other aspects of the search violate legal standards, the evidence could be excluded under the principle known as the 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' This illustrates that the legality of using seized items as evidence is nuanced and highly dependent on specific details surrounding the search.