Question is whether the officer reasonably believed the defendant consented, not whether the defendant actually understood

In the Eighth Circuit, the question is whether the officer reasonably believed the defendant consented, not whether the defendant actually understood. United States v. Flores, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66275 (D. Neb. August 28, 2008)*:

The determinative issue in this case is not whether Julio actually understood what he was signing, but, rather, whether Trooper Hazard reasonably believed that Julio understood and was consenting to the search. “The government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent by a preponderance of the evidence and must show that on the totality of the circumstances the officer reasonably believed that the search was consensual.” United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653, 660 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding consent finding even though subject did not speak English).

Comment: Doesn’t that framing of the issue just beg the question?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.