E.D. Mo.: Prior refusal of consent is a factor in finding voluntariness

Officers had probable cause to search the trunk of defendant’s car for weapons when none were seen in the backseat. United States v. Ross, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111620 (M.D. Fla. August 6, 2008).*

Defendant’s consent was valid. She was a nurse and highly educated, and she had previously refused to consent to a search, so she knew what she was doing. “Based on the totality of the circumstances, it is clear that Ms. Mabie’s consent was freely and voluntarily given, even if Detective Anderson did actually tell her that they would get a search warrant and ‘trash’ her house.” United States v. Mabie, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104009 (E.D. Mo. October 15, 2009).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant when he was found in a room with 1,200 credit cards and equipment to make counterfeit credit cards. United States v. Medina, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104158 (S.D. Fla. October 24, 2009).*

Consent to search wallet was a product of defendant’s illegal detention. United States v. Duarte, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104155 (S.D. Fla. November 4, 2009)*:

Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that Defendant Medina was still detained when he consented to the search of his wallet. From the testimony above, it is clear that the officers were in the process of letting him go, but he was not yet released. This fact alone distinguishes this case from Delancy. In Delancy, the homeowner was not detained at the time consent was given. In fact, the Eleventh Circuit noted that there was no detention whatsoever in Delancy. Delancy, 502 F.3d at 1311.

Even if there had been a short break between the detention and the consent for search (which there was not), Delancy should still be distinguished. Delancy involved a search after an illegal protective sweep of a home. In finding that timing was not as important a factor, the court focused specifically on the facts of that case. Delancy, 502 F.3d at 1311 (“on these facts, however, timing is not the most important factor”). Here, the duration of Defendant’s detention was the factor that made it unreasonable and, therefore, illegal. Thus, based on the facts of the instant case, timing is certainly an important factor.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.