CA5: General consent to search a car means containers and hidden compartments

General consent includes pretty much anywhere in the vehicle, including containers and compartments. United States v. Garcia, 604 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2010):

The scope of a consensual search may be limited by the expressed object of the search. Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251. But where, as here, an officer does not express the object of the search, the searched party, who knows the contents of the vehicle, has the responsibility explicitly to limit the scope of the search. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d at 667. Otherwise, an affirmative response to a general request is evidence of general consent to search. Id. Garcia did not qualify his consent to the officers, who therefore had general consent to search the truck.

General consent to search a vehicle does not, however, give an officer carte blanche over the vehicle. Id. at 669. A search must still be reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances. Id. The search here was reasonable. When the officers requested permission to search the truck after asking Garcia whether he was carrying “anything illegal,” it was natural to conclude that they might look for hidden compartments or containers.

Defendant argued that Gant supplanted the automobile exception. Not so. United States v. Ramos-Rogel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37012 (D. S.D. February 11, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.