N.D. Iowa: Consent in violation of Miranda can still be valid

Consent obtained in violation of Miranda can still be valid. A consent is not an incriminating statement. Voluntariness must still be considered, and here it was. United States v. Golinveaux, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91075 (N.D. Iowa November 6, 2008):

The Court finds that when Defendant consented to a search of her car, she was in custody and had invoked her right to counsel (despite not having been given a Miranda warning). Nonetheless, clear precedent in the Eighth Circuit provides that “a consent to search is not an incriminating statement.” Cody, 755 F.2d at 1330. Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to relief under the Fifth Amendment and Miranda.

. . .

After considering all of the facts and circumstances, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s consent to search her vehicle was given voluntarily. While Defendant was asked more than once to consent to a search of her vehicle, there is no evidence that the officers were threatening or that the dialogue was unduly coercive. The Court believes that Captain Berte had a legitimate concern that if the vehicle contained other chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine, then it could constitute a danger to persons using the parking lot at Wal-Mart. Having found that Defendant’s consent to search was given voluntarily, the Court concludes that Defendant is not entitled to relief on this ground.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.