ND: Consent to look in the trunk for drugs means the luggage can be searched, too

Defendants were coming from Washington which the officer knew had legalized personal use of marijuana [talk about pretext], so he made a traffic stop. The driver consented to a search, and labels of edible marijuana were seen in the trunk. Then the search went to closed containers. The observations in the trunk gave cause to go into luggage. Besides, consent to look for drugs includes containers in the trunk. State v. Asbach, 2015 ND 280, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 275 (Dec. 1, 2015); State v. Walker, 2015 ND 281, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 281 (Dec. 1, 2015).

The undercover officer in this case observed defendant walking away from an area where there was a shots fired call and toward him. Defendant was making gestures as if he had drugs for sale. The officer had been robbed working undercover before, and he had reason to fear that defendant was armed. When defendant encountered him, there was reasonable suspicion for a frisk. United States v. Graves, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161215 (M.D.Pa. Dec. 2, 2015).*

Consent that was the product of “moderate police misconduct” was suppressed. State v. Pichardo, 275 Ore. App. 49, 364 P.3d 1 (2015), aff’d State v. Pichardo, 360 Ore. 754 (Jan. 20, 2017) (posted here)

This entry was posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.