D.N.J.: Government failed to show consent

Court finds defendant’s consent was not voluntary, faulting in part the government’s failure to develop on cross-examination things that supported voluntariness. Since the government carried the burden of consent, it failed. United States v. Brown, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121514 (D. N.J. December 30, 2009)*:

After balancing the testimony of Ms. Ford and Detective Santiago and consideration of the submissions and evidence, this Court finds that the totality of the circumstances supports a finding that Ms. Ford’s consent was not voluntary. The Court finds the following facts significant: the time of the incident; the number and types of officers involved; the fact that the officers had a specific target prior to coming to the apartment yet had no plan for a method of further investigation that did not involve obtaining access to the apartment; the fact that the officers reported that the gun was ultimately found in plain view even though they allegedly conducted a visual sweep of the kitchen earlier and did not find the gun; the threat of DYFS involvement; and the way the form was given to Ms. Ford, completely filled out by the officers and folded over showing only the signature line. The Court finds that the Government has not met its burden that Ms. Ford knew she was consenting to a search of her apartment, as opposed to just signing a form the officers were insisting she sign so they would go away. Additionally, even if she knew the form was a consent to search form, the Court finds that, under the circumstances, the Government has not met its burden that Ms. Ford’s acquiescence was voluntary as opposed to given under the threat of her children being taken away by DYFS. Therefore, the gun seized as a result of the search is suppressed.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.