UT: Columbo gambit did not make the consent invalid

Defendant juvenile effectively consented to a search of his house for psychedelic mushrooms. The officer called him on his cell after having been given the number by another juvenile who consumed them. He got the defendant to meet him at defendant’s house, and he promised not to take him in if he turned over the drugs. “Officer Hansen told R.A. that he needed the drugs to complete his report and that he would ‘not take [R.A.] to juvenile detention’ if R.A. came home and gave the drugs to Officer Hansen. After R.A. agreed to leave work and come home, Officer Hansen asked R.A. to clarify whether he was going to turn over the items or if Officer Hansen should ‘try for a warrant.’ R.A. responded that ‘he didn’t want [Officer Hansen] to try for a warrant.’” State ex rel. R.A. v. State, 2010 UT App 71, 231 P.3d 808 (2010).*

Another success for the Columbo gambit (see here, too), although the court does not call it that. See LaFave, The “Routine Traffic Stop” from Start to Finish: Too Much “Routine,” Not Enough Fourth Amendment, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1843, 1898 (2004) (argues officers can “obviate any and all time and scope limitations” by performing “the well-known Lt. Columbo gambit [‘one more thing …’]”; State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 166 P. 3d 1015, 1027 (2007); Brown v. State, 182 P.3d 624, 632 (Alaska App. 2008). Beware of police officers saying “I just need to complete my report” or “The boys downtown require it.”

Defendant’s nervousness, an unusual number of air fresheners, and inability to name any passenger was reasonable suspicion. A drug dog was called, and the stop was not unreasonably long. State v. Sherrod, 2010 Ohio 1273, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 1085 (11th Dist. March 26, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.