CA5: Demand to open door still led to consent where officers did not come in until consent was granted

“Adam, open the door” was not a demand where the police did not come in. Defendant consented to the entry. The court distinguishes another case where the police yelled “Fort Worth Police: Open the door.” That was different because the police there rushed in. United States v. Longoria, 370 Fed. Appx. 481 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

Questioning defendant for 45-90 seconds about immigration status was not unreasonable. The district court’s conclusion that the drug dog alerted was supported by the evidence. United States v. Clayton, 374 Fed. Appx. 497 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

The defendant was found to have consented to the search. The officer spoke with him in Spanish, so there was no mistake about what was said. United States v. Madrigal-Negrete, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24103 (E.D. Mich. March 16, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.