Defendant’s consent was an act of free will without knowledge of an “excessive” plain view

Defendant’s consent was an act of free will and not the prior illegal search as an alleged plain view. State v. Ratliff, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 91 (February 20, 2008):

In the present case, the record shows that the consent given by the defendant and Mrs. Ratliff, which led to discovery of the videotape, was not given as the result of an illegal detention or illegal entry into their residence. Rather, the evidence shows that the consent, notwithstanding Officer Cassidy’s prior unjustified intrusion into the defendant’s privacy, was an act of free will. The defendant was not under arrest either when he granted Parker and Cassidy consent to search the house after they discovered the bag of marijuana seeds, or when he gave consent to search the house while being interrogated. The trial court accredited testimony that the defendant was apprised of his Miranda rights and understood the consent to search form that he signed before his interrogation. The defendant was not being unlawfully detained and was free to refuse consent to search the house.

Defendant failed to preserve her question of law for appeal of a conditional plea, and the appeal is dismissed. State v. Whitley, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 89 (February 19, 2008).*