CA4: Defendant revoked his consent to search his car, but officers did not stop searching; suppressed

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense and received no ticket. The officer pulled the Columbo gambit of starting back to his car and “asked him if he would answer ‘a couple of questions real quick.’” Defendant consented and four more troopers suddenly appeared. As soon as they were in the car, defendant revoked his consent. They didn’t stop. Whatever was found was after the ignored revocation of consent, and it can’t support the continued search. United States v. Patiutka, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18464 (4th Cir. Oct. 23, 2015).

Plaintiff stated a claim for excessive force where zipties were used to handcuff him and they were intentionally tightened to cause pain. Shamir v. City of New York, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18420 (2d Cir. Oct. 22, 2015).*

The affidavit for the search warrant for child pornography showed probable cause from getting it from defendant via a P2P connection. United States v. Kubaryk, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143660 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 28, 2015),* adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143813 (N.D. Ga., Oct. 22, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Excessive force. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.