CA6: Def consented to expanding breadth of SW because it was in his interest

Police had a search warrant for defendant’s property with marijuana grow operation, but the warrant didn’t cover outbuildings [usually they don’t even have to to cover them]. Here, defendant consented to the breadth of the search, and it was voluntary because he realized that it was in his interest to cooperate. United States v. Blomquist, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31825 (6th Cir. Oct. 7, 2020):

Blomquist also argues that his consent was tainted because the officers initially violated the warrant by detaining him on his cousin’s property. But exceeding the scope of a search warrant does not automatically render consent non-voluntary. We must instead look at the overall circumstances to determine whether any alleged violation affected the voluntariness of consent. Here, the chicken coop was close to the property line, and the record does not definitively establish where the arrest took place—on Blomquist’s father’s property (covered by the warrant) or on his cousin’s property (not covered by the warrant). So the location of the arrest does little to change our analysis of the “overall context and psychological impact of the entire sequence of events.” United States v. Jones, 846 F.2d 358, 361 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

In sum, the totality of the circumstances shows that Blomquist’s consent was voluntary. When the officers arrived, Blomquist sized up the situation, decided he was best off cooperating, and consented to the search of the chicken coop and greenhouses. His Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, and the district court correctly denied his motion to suppress.