Category Archives: Consent

OH5: Helicopter flyover discovery of MJ plants didn’t justify warrantless entry into curtilage; open fields search valid

The helicopter flyover of defendant’s property gave probable cause but no exception to the warrant requirement. The officers could enter up the driveway, and then consent to enter was given. The marijuana plants in the woods were in open fields. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Curtilage, Open fields | Comments Off

OH4: Isolated unsolicited comment def refused to consent to search was not error and was harmless error at best

An isolated comment volunteered by a witness that defendant refused to consent to a search that was never mentioned again wasn’t error. Even so, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming so it’s harmless. State v. Angus, 2017-Ohio-1100, 2017 Ohio App. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

CA6: Court details all the facts that make consent to search a cell phone voluntary

Defendant’s consent to search his cell phone for child pornography was voluntary. A host of facts support voluntariness. United States v. Mays, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5246 (6th Cir. March 23, 2017)*:

Posted in Consent | Comments Off

OH5: Consent was invalid when def was told she’d only be charged with tampering if she didn’t disclose the heroin on her person

The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that defendant’s consent to search was not freely and voluntarily given because the officer’s explanation to defendant incorrectly intimated that she could be charged with tampering with evidence if it was concealed on … Continue reading

Posted in Consent | Comments Off

NC: Driver not free to leave during questioning while officer holds his DL

The officer did not return the defendant’s driver’s license to him before beginning to question him while in his car in a hotel parking lot. Thus, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. Therefore, it was a … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off

D.Minn.: SW for “pornography” that “constitutes a crime” is specific enough to include CP

A search warrant for “pornography” that “constitutes a crime” is specific enough to include child pornography despite the fact that adult pornography isn’t a crime. There was also probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Barthman, … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Particularity | Comments Off

D.Mont.: Def’s live-in girlfriend’s consent was enough to expand the SW beyond its particularity; she volunteered something police weren’t even looking for

Defendant had an argument with his live-in girlfriend which escalated about the time the police arrived to hear it outside. They got a search warrant for his handgun, some papers, and her belongings to help her get out. She assisted … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Scope of search | Comments Off

S.D.Ala.: Hitting fog line 8 times is reason for a stop even if it doesn’t necessarily violation AL law

Touching the fog line once isn’t an offense (and dozens of cases are cited), but eight times is reasonable suspicion for a stop and at least justifies it under Heien: “While the Court questions whether touching or slightly crossing a … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonableness | Comments Off

IL: 13 yo couldn’t consent to search of his person

The juvenile didn’t consent because he was too young to think independently when confronted by police officers. They did, however, have reasonable suspicion for his stop for violating curfew. In re Elijah W., 2017 IL App (1st) 162648, 2017 Ill. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent | Comments Off

AZ: Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis GFE applies

Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis good faith exception applies here. Defendant was airlifted to a Nevada hospital for the blood draw. The trial court didn’t make findings on whether Nevada or Arizona law … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off