CA11: Def’s attempt to limit the scope of his consent search shows voluntariness

“Here, Knight knew that he had a firearm, ammunition, and drugs that he shouldn’t have. And his answer—telling the detective that he would consent to a search if she overlooked these items—was unconstrained by the detective’s question. Indeed, a simple yes or no response would have answered the consent question.” United States v. Knight, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14510 (11th Cir. May 16, 2019).

“Defendant’s detailed recitation of his criminal activity and his written consent to search his phone are contrary with a finding of coercive police conduct. Given the totality of the circumstances and law enforcement’s compliance with the dictates of Miranda in this case, this is not one of the ‘rare’ cases where a defendant might be able to make a colorable argument that his statements were compelled.” And thus the consent was valid. United States v. Moya, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82875 (E.D. Tex. April 16, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.