FL1: Consent must be acted on by the police timely or it evaporates

When defendant gives consent, the police must timely act on it. If they don’t, it evaporates. Johnson v. State, 995 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. App. 1DCA October 24, 2008):

[T]he illegal detention of Appellant, after he had given consent but before the police exercised the privilege extended by the consent, created a taint which could be overcome only by a sufficient break in the chain of illegality. The burden to establish this break rests with law enforcement. There is no evidence that such a break occurred. Therefore, the search must be found nonconsensual, and the evidence improperly seized. The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.

Grow operation allegations were not stale because of the allegations of an ongoing operation. United States v. Mims, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D. Minn. 2008) (“While it was possible that the grow operation, including the plants, equipment and set-up, had been destroyed or removed from the premises between September or October of 2007 and January 2008, given that the venture had been going on for a lengthy period of time, it was just as likely that it would still be present on the premises three months later.”).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.