S.D.Ohio: A non-baseless threat to get a SW to get consent does not make it involuntary

Consent was obtained after the officers threatened to get a search warrant, but the threat was not baseless. So, the consent was valid. United States v. Bigi, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105954 (S.D. Ohio September 22, 2010)*:

The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly held that an officer’s threat to obtain a warrant if the defendant does not consent to the search does not taint the defendant’s subsequent consent to a search, unless the threat is baseless. See United States v. Salvo, 133 F.3d 943, 954 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing a number of cases from other circuits); United States v. Blanco, 844 F.2d 344, 351 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1046 (1988); United States v. Watson, No. 96-5037, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 17186 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 961 (1997) (“Notifying a person that a warrant can be obtained does not render consent involuntary unless the threat to obtain the warrant is baseless.”).

Defense counsel could not be ineffective for not moving to suppress a plain view during the execution of an otherwise valid search warrant. Crawford v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106172 (E.D. Pa. October 4, 2010).*

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the officer decided to call for a drug dog which arrived before the ticket was even filled out. Therefore, defendant was not detained unreasonably by the use of the drug dog. United States v. Aguando-Garcia, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106042 (S.D. Ohio September 27, 2010).*