D.Ariz.: Gov’t bears burden of showing common authority, which it did.

The evidence showed that defendant’s wife did not have express authorization to consent to a search, so the government bore the burden of showing she had common authority, which it did. She shared the computer, it was located in a separate room they called the “computer room,” and her access was unlimited. United States v. Smith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47553 (D. Ariz. April 19, 2010).*

Defendant’s furtive movements during her stop justified reasonable suspicion for a frisk. State v. Morgan, 348 Ore. 283, 230 P.3d 928 (2010).*

The record supports the conclusion that defendant’s consent was voluntary. Defendant’s own suppression testimony did not even touch on consent. United States v. Clark, 377 Fed. Appx. 451, 2010 FED App. 0290N (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.