CA9: Def chose not to deal with police, so he didn’t reject consent for Randolph purposes

Randolph requires an express refusal of consent. Defendant here refused to come to the door when the police arrived, and he let his girlfriend talk to them, and she consented to a search. He didn’t have to be asked. United States v. Moore, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20413 (9th Cir. October 23, 2014).

Defendant was allegedly seen running from police with a black bag, which he steadfastly contended he did not possess when it was found abandoned, so he didn’t have standing to object to its seizure or search. United States v. O’Kelley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150900 (E.D. Tenn. October 24, 2014),* R&R 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151736 (E.D. Tenn. September 5, 2014).*

A pipe was in plain view during a traffic stop and a search of the person produced marijuana; the search of the car was valid under the automobile exception. State v. Evans, 2014-Ohio-4703, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4611 (2d Dist. October 24, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Automobile exception, Consent, Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.