Proof of actual ownership for apparent consent is not required.

It might have been prudent to wait for proof of ownership of a vehicle, but the officer did not have to when somebody asserted that they were the owner for purposes of granting consent. Commonwealth v. Graham, 2008 PA Super 100, 949 A.2d 939 (2008).*

“¶11 … [A]sking for consent to search did not turn a voluntary meeting into a seizure. Appellant’s position, if accepted, would essentially vitiate any consent to search where probable cause to search did not already exist. Such is not the state of the law.” State v. Harrington, 144 Wn. App. 558, 183 P.3d 352 (2008).*

Office gave a mixed motive for the stop of headlights and what he thought was suspicious activity, and this made the stop pretextual under Washington law. State v. Montes-Malindas, 144 Wn. App. 254, 182 P.3d 999 (2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.