“Perhaps the last thing one usually expects when exiting the bathroom is to find a police officer on the other side of the door. However, such was the situation Tremaine Cowan discovered when he exited the restroom of a private home in February 2015. The question of this case is whether, upon being asked by that officer if he would consent to a pat-down for the officer’s safety, any agreement would be mere acquiescence rather than true consent. The district court held that Cowan had consented to the officer’s request. Because Cowan had the opportunity to decline what the evidence describes as a cordial question and made no indication that he consented under protest or pressure, we affirm the district court’s holding and its denial of Cowan’s motion to suppress.” Maybe this court unconstrained by the standard of review would decide it differently, but it can’t. United States v. Cowan, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15669 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2017).* (If the facts aren’t in dispute, as here, the court of appeal could have reviewed de novo (Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)) and found it acquiescence to a claim of authority.).
“The district court properly dismissed McCain’s Fourth Amendment claims relating to the traffic stop and her later arrest because McCain failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants did not have reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and a reasonable basis to execute an arrest warrant.” McCain v. Stockton Police Dep’t, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15409 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2017).*