LA5: Randolph does not require defendant be asked for consent

Defendant’s furtive gesture justified a protective search of defendant’s person during a traffic stop. The court went to great lengths to explain how defendant’s failure to respond to questions added to it. State v. Bridges, 2009 WI App 66, 319 Wis. 2d 217, 767 N.W.2d 593 (2009), review denied by
2009 WI 99, 2009 Wisc. LEXIS 328 (2009).*

Defendant’s gesture was consent. “The Court concludes that Ms. Reynolds’ gesture towards the headboard likewise constituted implied-in-fact consent on which Officer Harris reasonably relied when he searched for the guns.” United States v. Reynolds, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36687 (D. Me. April 21, 2009).*

Juvenile’s stop was justified based on the fact he was obviously truant. Officer also had articulable suspicion that he and his cohorts were about to commit a burglary. In the Interest of J. T., 297 Ga. App. 636, 678 S.E.2d 111 (2009).*

Defendant’s stop was only “9 minutes old” when he consented to a search of the vehicle which was found valid. Stagg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 640, 678 S.E.2d 108 (2009).*

The spirit of Randolph does not require officers ask the defendant here for consent. Here, the officers bypassed the defendant and asked his girlfriend. State v. Johnson, 9 So. 3d 1084 (La. App. (5th Cir. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.