N.D.Ala.: Telling officer he could “check it” after request for consent is consent

The stop was on a city street, and defendant said the officer could “check it” when asked for consent. He was free to go [if he was willing to walk off from his car] when he consented. United States v. Santiago-Santiago, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67384 (N.D. Ala. April 18, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66468 (N.D. Ala. May 2, 2017).*

Thin but found sufficient: “In addition, defendant takes issue with the officer’s statement that the first informant is ‘trusted,’ ‘reliable,’ and a ‘proven informant,’ and that all three informants refused to be identified. Defendant likens this to United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1996), in which the Court held that upholding this type of warrant ‘would ratify police use of an unknown, unproven informant — with little or no corroboration — to justify searching someone’s house.’ The defendant, however, leaves out an important detail contained in the affidavit. Officer Haines goes on to support his opinion regarding the informant’s trustworthiness by stating that ‘[he has] since proven to be accurate on two following investigations.’” United States v. Moran, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68995 (N.D.W.Va. May 5, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.