Category Archives: Consent

WA: No requirement of a consent search def be there to see it to be able to withdraw consent

There is no authority that a consent search is invalid if the target isn’t there to watch it or communicate with the searching officer. That is not a prerequisite to consent, even when the target his the authority to withdraw … Continue reading

Posted in Consent | Comments Off on WA: No requirement of a consent search def be there to see it to be able to withdraw consent

W.D.N.C.: Protective sweep permits a plain view, but officers could not open closed containers

The protective sweep of defendant’s hotel room permitted looking at a glass jar and box of ammunition that were out in the open. Looking in a glasses case and a duffle bag, however, cannot be justified by the protective sweep … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Protective sweep permits a plain view, but officers could not open closed containers

W.D.N.Y.: Consensual entry to a tracking-drug dog during a robbery and burglary investigation led to finding drugs in potential victim’s home

Officers were investigating a robbery and a potential burglary near defendant’s house. The officer with the dog was outside for 45 minutes going around the area looking for a scent [of what?] and then they sought to enter defendant’s home … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Dog sniff | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Consensual entry to a tracking-drug dog during a robbery and burglary investigation led to finding drugs in potential victim’s home

AZ implied consent law valid under McNeely

“Defendant now challenges the facial constitutionality of [the Arizona implied consent law,] § 28-1321, arguing that it is invalid under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on AZ implied consent law valid under McNeely

CA1: Asking when you can get your car back is not revocation of consent; here it took over 21 days to search defendant’s car

Defendant’s car was seized as evidence of what he claimed was a carjacking where guns were stolen out of his car. His wife was murdered around that time. The government believed that the carjacking was a ruse to coverup loss … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA1: Asking when you can get your car back is not revocation of consent; here it took over 21 days to search defendant’s car

W.D.Ky.: Threat to arrest def’s mother if he didn’t consent made it involuntary

Defendant’s consent was not voluntary where the officer claimed to have search warrant papers and said that he’d arrest defendant’s mother if the search warrant had to be used. United States v. Bachelor, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161299 (W.D.Ky. Dec. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Roadblocks | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Threat to arrest def’s mother if he didn’t consent made it involuntary

AR: Consent to a blood draw waives statutory requirement doctor or nurse do it

When a defendant in a DUI negligent homicide case consents to a blood draw, it doesn’t matter that the sample wasn’t drawn by a nurse or a doctor. Here it was a lab technician, and the results were admissible. Roe … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on AR: Consent to a blood draw waives statutory requirement doctor or nurse do it

OH2: Def was illegally detained to induce him to give up his DNA, and his statement was suppressed

Defendant was illegally detained in an effort to get him to give up his DNA. The officer got him to go down to the stationhouse, but it wasn’t by consent. His statement was suppressed. State v. Armstead, 2015-Ohio-5010, 2015 Ohio … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent | Comments Off on OH2: Def was illegally detained to induce him to give up his DNA, and his statement was suppressed

OH4: No answer during a knock-and-talk permitted officers to go to the back door to knock

A knock-and-talk that goes unanswered permits the officers to go to the back door without violating Jardines, following Miller v. State, 342 Ark. 213, 27 S.W.3d 427 (2002). There they smelled a chemical odor. State v. Ash, 2015-Ohio-4974, 2015 Ohio … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Curtilage, Knock and talk | Comments Off on OH4: No answer during a knock-and-talk permitted officers to go to the back door to knock

ND: Consent to look in the trunk for drugs means the luggage can be searched, too

Defendants were coming from Washington which the officer knew had legalized personal use of marijuana [talk about pretext], so he made a traffic stop. The driver consented to a search, and labels of edible marijuana were seen in the trunk. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Scope of search | Comments Off on ND: Consent to look in the trunk for drugs means the luggage can be searched, too

TX11: No SW needed to search vomit after consensual drug overdose treatment

During a traffic stop, defendant had a lump in his cheek and he was acting suspicious. The officer asked him what was in his mouth, and he said he had an abscess. He tried to show the officer, but the … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on TX11: No SW needed to search vomit after consensual drug overdose treatment

UT: Officer’s testimony about consent was hearsay but not inadmissible or excludable

The officer’s description of consent to search a truck driven by another was not inadmissible hearsay. The effort to show that it was unreliable was insufficient, and it was not so unreliable to be excludable. State v. Clark, 2015 UT … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Consent, Seizure | Comments Off on UT: Officer’s testimony about consent was hearsay but not inadmissible or excludable

HI: Under state constitution, telling a motorist that if he doesn’t give a breath sample he’ll go to jail for 30 days is not voluntary consent

Under the Hawai’i Constitution’s protection of individual privacy, telling a motorist that if he doesn’t give a breath sample he’ll go to jail for 30 days is not voluntary consent. State v. Won, 2015 Haw. LEXIS 317 (Nov. 25, 2015) … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on HI: Under state constitution, telling a motorist that if he doesn’t give a breath sample he’ll go to jail for 30 days is not voluntary consent

GA: Def was detained and frisked for drugs, and view of text messages [pre-Riley] was reasonable based on drug dealing

Defendant first fled from police from a stop for driving with no headlights. The officer broke off the chase then went to the address the car was registered to and found it. Defendant was there with another, and he was … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Scope of search | Comments Off on GA: Def was detained and frisked for drugs, and view of text messages [pre-Riley] was reasonable based on drug dealing

IL: Where statute on which seizure was based was later held unconstitutional, it is void ab initio; Krull and Davis not followed

In People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, 377 Ill. Dec. 405, 2 N.E.3d 321 (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court held facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment the state flat prohibition on possession of firearms outside the home. This defendant’s arrest … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Good faith exception | Comments Off on IL: Where statute on which seizure was based was later held unconstitutional, it is void ab initio; Krull and Davis not followed

WA: Def not entitled to suppression hearing where only disputed fact wasn’t material to any Fourth Amendment question

There was no right to a suppression hearing where the only disputed fact was irrelevant to any Fourth Amendment question. State v. Houston-Sconiers, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2915 (Nov. 24, 2015). Defendant was stopped because the officer knew from a … Continue reading

Posted in Consent | Comments Off on WA: Def not entitled to suppression hearing where only disputed fact wasn’t material to any Fourth Amendment question

Cal.App.Div.: Not giving the implied consent law’s admonitions doesn’t make the BAC test result inadmissible; totality of circumstances of consent still applies

Not giving the implied consent law’s admonitions doesn’t make the BAC test result inadmissible. The totality of the circumstances for consent can still be considered. Remanded. People v. Agnew, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1032 (App.Div. Santa Clara Oct. 26, 2015):

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on Cal.App.Div.: Not giving the implied consent law’s admonitions doesn’t make the BAC test result inadmissible; totality of circumstances of consent still applies

D.Kan.: Def consented to talk about his status and a fingerprint scan that confirmed he’d previously been deported

ICE officers were looking for a “certain alien” who was not the defendant who had been released from the county jail. They saw the defendant carry trash to the street receptacle and asked him if he’d seen the man in … Continue reading

Posted in Consent | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Def consented to talk about his status and a fingerprint scan that confirmed he’d previously been deported

W.D.La.: Def transferred his car to get it out of impound while he remained in jail; he had no standing when he arranged an interstate drug run for a co-conspirator

Based on a monitored jail call, officers in Monroe, Louisiana determined that defendant had a co-conspirator drive a car to Dallas to pick up methamphetamine and come right back. They applied for a warrant to install a GPS, and the … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Def transferred his car to get it out of impound while he remained in jail; he had no standing when he arranged an interstate drug run for a co-conspirator

E.D.Ky.: Not IAC to not question search at sentencing

Failure to call witnesses at defendant’s child pornography sentencing relating to the legality of the search and seizure in the beginning of the case was not ineffective assistance. They couldn’t add anything at sentencing. Cottle v. United States, 2015 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Not IAC to not question search at sentencing