D.Minn.: Even with a Miranda violation, later consent still valid

Defendant was the subject of a Miranda violation and his statement is suppressed, but his consent is independent of that and it was voluntary. “[E]ven if the Defendant were illegally detained, the subsequent consent served to purge the taint of the illegal action.” United States v. Rakotojoelinandrasana, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109139 (D. Minn. August 2, 2010) (also, in fn. 2, judicial notice taken of Google Maps), adopted 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109241 (D. Minn. October 13, 2010).

The package in a controlled delivery made it to defendant’s car, and a warrant was unnecessary to search the car for it. United States v. Trevino, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109093 (M.D. Fla. September 23, 2010).*

Defendant was not free to leave. (“See [Exhibit 1 at 3:59:03 a.m. through 3:59:05 a.m. (In response to the Defendant’s asking if he could leave, Walker replied, ‘No. You move off that car and you are going to have a bad day.’)]. The question for the Court’s resolution is whether the seizure of the Defendant was unreasonable.”) Based on the facts, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was involved in a robbery. And, “handcuffing a suspect does not ‘exceed the bounds of a Terry stop, so long as the circumstances warrant that precaution.’” United States v. Nance, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108781 (E.D. Tenn. September 17, 2010).*