N.D.Cal.: When officer asks if there’s anything illegal in car and def consents, consent includes the trunk

Defendant’s consent was found voluntary on the totality, and defendant had to understand that the scope of consent included the trunk. “First, with respect to the object of the search, the evidence shows that Officer Williams asked defendant if he had anything illegal on him or in his vehicle, before asking defendant if he would mind if Officer Williams searched him and his vehicle. … ‘The scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object,’ Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251. The scope of consent is assessed under an objective reasonableness standard, and is not based on the suspect’s subjective understanding: “what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?’ Id. …. ” United States v. Lawson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50504 (N.D.Cal. April 14, 2016).

Defendant was stopped for no tag lights. At the suppression hearing, defendant’s girlfriend testified that they were working after she picked up the truck from impound. The FPD investigator testified they were working the week before the suppression hearing. The court credits the officer. In addition, it was entirely possible here that the bulbs were so dim that they qualified as not working properly. Nevertheless, the court considers this a reasonable mistake of fact under Heien. “The Court finds Maher’s testimony to be credible to the extent that he believed that he had observed a traffic violation, and the evidence produced by defendant does not detract from the reasonableness of Maher’s belief.” United States v. Cone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49543 (N.D.Okla. April 13, 2016).*