“Lawyering up” does not prohibit a police request for consent

Defendant invoked his right to remain silent, but a request for consent after that is not prohibited. State v. Cummings, 188 N.C. App. 598, 656 S.E.2d 329 (2008), review denied 362 N.C. 364, 661 S.E.2d 743 (2008):

After Defendant invoked his right to counsel, interrogation ceased. Agents did not ask any further questions about the robbery or Mr. Graham’s homicide. The agents asked only whether Defendant would give his consent for his vehicle to be searched, a question to which Miranda warnings do not apply. See Frank, 284 N.C. at 142, 200 S.E.2d at 173. Because there is competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding of fact, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in finding that Defendant’s “consent to search his vehicle was consensual.”

Omission from child porn affidavit that website that defendant visited “guaranteed” images were of adults was not material to the showing of probable cause where the officer actually viewed the images on the computer which were of minors. United States v. Gatherum, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96137 (S.D. W.Va. December 27, 2007).*

Handing over car keys to an officer who said that he was going to search defendant’s car was not consent. That was acquiescence to a claim of authority. Hollenback v. State, 289 Ga. App. 516, 657 S.E.2d 884 (2008).*

Even assuming the entry into defendant’s house was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the assault on the officers was not subject to the exclusionary rule. State v. Parker, 655 S.E.2d 860 (N.C. App. 2008).*

Search warrant for defendant’s blood was based on probable cause that he was driving under the influence. State v. Matus, 2008 Ohio 377, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 336 (6th Dist. February 1, 2008).*