CA11: “[D]o what you gotta do” was consent here

“[D]o what you gotta do” was consent here, not mere acquiescence to authority. “The officers’ testimony at the suppression hearing also reflects that May gave permission to enter. In similar circumstances where only a few officers were present without their guns drawn, this Court has found a defendant’s ‘yielding the right-of-way’ to the officers, in the absence of any explicit verbal consent, to be sufficient voluntary consent to enter.” United States v. Antone-Herron, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23205 (11th Cir. December 10, 2014).

After defendant’s arrest, he gave his cell phone to his girlfriend to use, and she even loaned it to her minor son. Therefore, she had apparent authority to consent to a search of the phone. United States v. Archambault, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170726 (W.D.N.Y. May 13, 2014), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170150 (W.D.N.Y., December 9 2014).*

When the car door opened, the marijuana was in plain view. United States v. Roberts, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170230 (W.D. Mo. November 17, 2014), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169291 (W.D. Mo. December 8, 2014).*