E.D.N.C.: Defendant’s presence at a search of his house is not required to “maintain his consent”

Defendant’s presence at a search of his house is not required to “maintain his consent.” Stating that a locked room was his daughter’s room was not revocation of consent. United States v. Hicks, 631 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. N.C. 2009).*

Defendant was arrested for masturbating in a mall parking lot, and a search of his wallet produced a laminated photograph of an erect penis being touched by a young boy, which apparently had been photoshopped together. Defendant had also been arrested twice before for sex offenses with children and was unregistered. This was PC on the totality of circumstances for child porn being in his house and on his computer. After the execution of the warrant, defendant consented to a search of the computer, but a warrant was later issued for it, too. United States v. McArthur, 573 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2009).*

Defendant’s car had be impounded because the registration was invalid and none of the occupants was capable of driving it. Officers also suspected the vehicle had been involved in a bank robbery. An inventory of the car produced nothing. A search warrant was obtained and it was searched again finding an apparent red dye spot from the exploding dye pack. “The Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure was not violated because the vehicle was not searched until a warrant was obtained.” United States v. Griffin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63819 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2009).*

Defendant’s understanding of his rights in a consent to search situation was shown by the fact that he later objected to a search. He was not native born, but he had been naturalized for four years and testified in English. United States v. Tran, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63869 (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.