CA4: Bodycam video shows consent to enter and statement made were voluntary

The government had consent to enter defendant’s home, and he was convicted of illegal entry and deported. The bodycam video supports the finding of voluntary consent. United States v. Azua-Rinconada, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2783 (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019):

In this case, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the officers received voluntary consent to enter Azua’s residence. The body cam footage, which is part of the record, shows that the encounter did indeed stand in “stark contrast” to those cases where consent was found to be involuntary. See, e.g., Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548-49, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1968) (finding consent to be involuntary where officers falsely claimed they had a warrant); Gregg v. Ham, 678 F.3d 333, 336-37, 342 (4th Cir. 2012) (finding consent to be involuntary where a physically disabled woman allowed an officer, who was armed with a shotgun, and three bail bondsmen into her home after the officer shook the door and said that she “had to let them come in or he was going to come in”); cf. United States v. Elie, 111 F.3d 1135, 1145-46 (4th Cir. 1997) (finding consent to be voluntary where at least six officers were present), abrogated in part on other grounds by Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 147 L. Ed. 2d 405 (2000). Azua’s argument to the contrary depends almost entirely on Corporal Hernandez’s statement, “open the door or we’re going to knock it down.”

This entry was posted in Body cameras, Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.