ID: Def’s attempt to remove purse from car after consent to search car was her limitation on consent

When defendant consented to a search of her car, she attempted to remove her purse, and the officer had to honor that as a limitation on the consent. He ordered her to put it back, and that was mere acquiesce to a claim of authority. State v. Greub, 2017 Ida. App. LEXIS 63 (Aug. 29, 2017).

“The government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the stop was not unreasonably prolonged. … During the first 10 minutes of the stop—from its beginning until the time when Urban received the written warning and denied consent to search—Sgt. Rangel asked questions about topics related to the stop, such as the vehicle’s ownership and the trip itinerary, … 350, and also asked follow-up questions in a “graduated response to emerging facts,” …. This phase of the stop was reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the stop and to dispelling reasonable suspicion developed during the stop. … [¶] And Sgt. Rangel’s decision to detain defendants for an additional eight minutes to conduct the free-air sniff was likewise not unreasonable.” United States v. Urban, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137406 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.