N.D.Miss.: Defendant’s cooperation and prior arrest experience showed voluntary consent

Defendant’s cooperation during the stop and search of his car showed that it was by consent. The officer told the defendant that his consent could be withdrawn. He also had experience with law enforcement in the past, and it was apparent that the defendant thought that the drugs were so well hidden that they would not be found. United States v. McCoy, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48930 (N.D. Miss. April 21, 2010).*

One defendant was removed from the car and searched because of furtive movements, and the car was searched too. Having found nothing on him, the officer searched the other, but there was no articulable reasonable suspicion as to him. The government’s argument as to inevitable discovery fails as to the second defendant because there was no reason to believe that the vehicle had to be impounded until the second was searched. United States v. Fields, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48777 (S.D. Ohio April 23, 2010).*

Third party consent to seize and search defendant’s computer for child porn by one with common authority over it was valid. A search warrant was thus not required. State v. Ramage, 2010 WI App 77, 325 Wis. 2d 483, 784 N.W.2d 746 (2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.