E.D.Tenn.: Defendant’s belief it was futile to resist search helped show search invalid

The government failed to prove that defendant’s consent was valid. He testified that he consented because he believed it was futile to refuse, and this was not rebutted. United States v. Moore, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5259 (E.D. Tenn. January 23, 2009):

The Court finds that though defendant expressly consented to a search of his person, the government did not meet its burden of showing that this consent was freely and voluntarily given. Defendant testified that when Officer Wallace asked defendant if he could search his person, though defendant did not want to be searched, he felt that Officer Wallace “was going to do it regardless.” [Tr. at 75.] On cross-examination, defendant elaborated in response to questions from the Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”):

AUSA: You are aware of what you can and can’t do, when it comes to officers with the KPD, aren:t you?

Defendant: Yes.

AUSA: So you are aware that you do have a choice?

Defendant: Not really. Not in that area. They are going to search you, regardless. It doesn’t matter.

AUSA: Regardless of what you think they can do legally, when you are posed a question by an officer “Can I search you?” you know you can answer yes or no, don’t you?

Defendant: I mean, you probably could. They still going to do it anyway.

AUSA: You could have answered no, if you wanted to, couldn’t you?

Defendant: Like I say, I didn’t have a choice.

[Tr. at 76-77.] There is nothing in the record which suggests that defendant was lying about his belief that he was going to be searched regardless of if he had answered no, and, in fact, Officer Wallace’s actions immediately prior to defendant giving consent support defendant’s testimony that he believed withholding consent would be futile.

Officer had reasonable suspicion for a patdown of the defendant for a knife based on reason to believe he had a knife and bizarre behavior. After defendant could not respond correctly to who he was, it was permissible to extend the stop to determine who he was. United States v. Horton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5505 (N.D. Iowa January 26, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.