CA6: Ptf still doesn’t show a question of fact whether he consent to officer looking in his wallet

Plaintiff’s response “absolutely” during a frisk to looking in his wallet was reasonably determined to be consent. His argument over the words used didn’t create a sufficient question of fact. Gale v. O’Donohue, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25752 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) (“Gale’s linguistic argument boils down to whether Gale’s word choice in this case, without context, creates a dispute on his consent to the search and seizure. We find it does not. It may be that, without context, an affirmative answer—e.g. “absolutely”—in response to the type of question posed here ‘is ambiguous[.]’ United States v. Price, 54 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir. 1995) (explaining that ‘[s]ure’ in response to ‘[d]o you mind[?]’ is ‘capable of being interpreted as either “Go ahead” or “No way”’). An ordinary person could understand Gale’s response ‘absolutely’ to mean ‘absolutely [I mind]’ and as a refusal to consent. But an ordinary person could also interpret Gale’s response ‘absolutely’ to mean ‘absolutely [you may search my wallet]’ or ‘absolutely [not, I don’t mind]’ and as consent.”).*

The 2017 affidavit for the order for CSLI showed a substantial basis for probable cause. United States v. Alvarez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146084 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.