AR: Alternative argument on timing of consent not ruled on below, so it’s defaulted

Consent was found against the defendant, and it’s affirmed on appeal because “the record is devoid of any evidence that appellant was coerced into consenting.” Her alternative argument that the consent was obtained after the search was already started was not ruled on by the trial court, so it can’t be considered on appeal. Nance v. State, 2014 Ark. 201, 2014 Ark. LEXIS 281 (May 8, 2014).*

Defendant was found to have consented to both a protective sweep and a search. It started as a knock-and-talk, but he was excessively nervous and was handcuffed for safety reasons before the consent was sought. United States v. Ellis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62998 (E.D. Ark. May 5, 2014).*

In a kidnapping situation, the SWAT team finally entered, and one was trained in identifying meth labs. This meth lab was in plain view. Smith v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 289, 2014 Ark. App. LEXIS 341 (May 7, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.