S.D.Ohio: Householder here consented to police entry to search for def

The householder here consented by his actions to police entry to search for defendant. “Regardless of who is deemed more credible, Marshall admits that, after he told the officers that OJ was not there, he unlocked the screen door and pushed it open to let the officers in. Based on this admission, the Court finds that Marshall unequivocally and specifically consented to the search, if not expressly, then at least impliedly. See United States v. Gamez, 389 F. Supp. 2d 975, 979 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (noting that consent to search ‘may be in the form of words, gesture or conduct.;).” United States v. Marshall, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37780 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2019).*

“The claim herein is that the Defendant, a live-in guest of his father, has a privacy interest in his father’s financial decision to obtain internet service because it is ‘indispensable to participation in modern society’.” There still is no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. McCutchin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37499 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.